cocos_add_tiled_sprite

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Attach' which implies a mutation operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether it modifies existing components, error conditions, or the effect on the scene. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key detail ('type=TILED'). It has zero wasted words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details about parameter usage, behavioral context for a mutation tool, and differentiation from siblings, making it inadequate for effective agent use despite the concise structure.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain any parameters (e.g., what 'scene_path' or 'node_id' refer to, or how 'sprite_frame_uuid' and color values are used). The mention of 'type=TILED' hints at the sprite type but does not map to specific parameters, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Attach') and resource ('cc.Sprite') with a specific type ('type=TILED'), indicating it adds a tiled sprite component. It distinguishes from generic sprite tools by specifying the tiled pattern fill, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_sprite' or 'cocos_add_filled_sprite' beyond the type hint.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'cocos_add_sprite' for non-tiled sprites or 'cocos_add_filled_sprite' for solid fills). The description implies usage for tiled sprites but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name and parameters alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.