cocos_set_node_active

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the toggle does (changes visibility/ticking state) but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to child nodes, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 all necessary information in one efficient sentence. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or redundancy. The structure moves directly from action to parameter meaning to value interpretation.

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 this is a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema (which reduces need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core operation but leaves significant gaps in parameter documentation, behavioral context, and usage guidance that would help an agent use it correctly.

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 for all 3 parameters, the description provides no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It mentions 'node' and '_active flag' which relate to parameters, but doesn't explain what scene_path or node_id represent, their formats, or constraints. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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: 'Toggle a node's _active flag' with specific explanation of what True/False values mean (visible/ticking vs disabled). It uses a specific verb ('toggle') and identifies the resource ('node's _active flag'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond the name suggesting node manipulation.

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. While sibling tools show many node manipulation options (set_position, set_rotation, etc.), there's no mention of when this specific toggle operation is appropriate versus other node modifications or what prerequisites might exist.

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