cocos_link_property

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 the tool sets a reference and allows clearing it, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether it's destructive (e.g., overwrites existing properties), error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key usage note. There is no wasted language, and every sentence adds value, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It explains the core function and one parameter's special case, but lacks details on other parameters, behavioral context, and error handling. The output schema may cover return values, but the description does not compensate for the missing parameter and behavioral information adequately.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds some semantics by explaining that 'target_id' can be set to 'None' to clear a reference, which clarifies one parameter's purpose. However, it does not explain the other three parameters ('scene_path', 'component_id', 'prop_name'), leaving them undocumented and unclear in meaning.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set a @property on a component to reference another node/component.' It specifies the verb ('Set'), resource ('@property on a component'), and action ('reference another node/component'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_set_property' or 'cocos_set_uuid_property', which may have overlapping or similar functions, so it misses full distinction.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: for setting references between nodes/components, and specifically notes 'Pass `target_id=None` to clear the reference,' which indicates a use case for clearing references. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, but the guidance is sufficient for basic usage.

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