cocos_add_toggle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions attaching a toggle and a parameter source, without explaining what the tool does behaviorally (e.g., whether it creates, modifies, or configures a toggle, what the effects are, permissions needed, or error handling). This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 concise with two short phrases, but it's under-specified rather than efficiently structured. It front-loads the main action ('Attach cc.Toggle') but lacks necessary details, making it feel incomplete rather than optimally brief. Some waste exists due to missing context.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which might help with return values), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral context, or usage scenarios adequately. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured data, the description falls short of providing enough context.

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 only adds meaning for 'check_events' by referencing 'cocos_make_event_handler()', but the other 4 parameters (scene_path, node_id, is_checked, transition) are not explained in the description, leaving most semantics unclear. This partial coverage is insufficient.

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 'Attach cc.Toggle. check_events: list from cocos_make_event_handler().' states a verb ('Attach') and resource ('cc.Toggle'), but it's vague about what 'attach' means in this context (e.g., to a node, scene, or component) and doesn't clearly differentiate from siblings like 'cocos_add_button' or 'cocos_add_slider'. It partially explains the purpose but lacks specificity.

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?

The description mentions 'check_events: list from cocos_make_event_handler()', which implies a prerequisite or source for one parameter, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other UI components in the sibling list) or any exclusions. No clear context for usage is stated.

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