cocos_create_prefab

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a file, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing files, error conditions, or what happens if the path is invalid. This leaves 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 details (location and root node). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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's complexity (a write operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't compensate for the missing structured data, failing to explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent poorly informed.

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%, meaning none of the three parameters (project_path, prefab_name, root_name) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description mentions 'prefab' and 'root node', hinting at prefab_name and root_name, but doesn't explain their semantics, formats, or the purpose of project_path. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's lack of coverage.

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 ('Create an empty .prefab') and the resource/location ('in assets/prefabs/ with a single root node'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_save_subtree_as_prefab' or 'cocos_create_node', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or compare with sibling tools such as 'cocos_save_subtree_as_prefab' for saving existing nodes as prefabs, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.

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