cocos_set_native_build_config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool modifies configuration files ('Configure... in builder.json') and that fields are optional with None preserving existing values, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, or what happens on success/failure.

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 efficiently structured: first sentence states the core purpose, followed by bullet-like explanations of each parameter group, ending with the important optionality rule. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

For a complex configuration tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does remarkably well by explaining parameter semantics thoroughly and clarifying the optional/merge behavior. The main gap is lack of information about return values or error conditions, but given the parameter-heavy nature, it's mostly complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 15 parameters, the description compensates excellently by explaining the meaning and format of nearly all parameters: platform values ('ios' or 'android'), orientation options, path requirements, iOS team ID format, Android API level examples, keystore usage logic, and app bundle purpose. It adds significant value beyond the bare 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 specific action ('Configure'), target resource ('iOS or Android native build settings in builder.json'), and scope (all optional fields). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on native build configuration rather than scene/node manipulation or other build-related tasks like 'cocos_set_bundle_config' or 'cocos_build'.

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 implies usage when configuring native build settings for iOS or Android platforms, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cocos_set_bundle_config' or 'cocos_build'. It mentions platform-specific parameters but doesn't clarify prerequisites or exclusions.

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