cocos_set_skybox

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 discloses behavioral traits such as the meaning of 'env_lighting_type' values and how to clear or leave 'envmap_uuid' unchanged, which adds useful context. However, it does not cover other parameters like 'enabled' or 'use_hdr', and lacks details on permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the main purpose and then detailing specific parameters. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It explains some parameter semantics but omits others like 'enabled' and 'use_hdr', and does not describe the return value or error handling. It meets a minimum viable level but has clear gaps in coverage.

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, the description compensates by explaining the semantics of 'env_lighting_type' (with enum-like details) and 'envmap_uuid' (clear vs. leave unchanged). It does not cover 'scene_path', 'enabled', or 'use_hdr', but adds significant value for two key parameters, justifying a score above the baseline.

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 ('Configure') and target resource ('scene's cc.SkyboxInfo'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_set_ambient' or 'cocos_set_fog', which also configure scene properties, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 some implied context by explaining the 'env_lighting_type' options and 'envmap_uuid' behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other skybox-related tools if any) or any prerequisites. There is no guidance on exclusions or specific scenarios for usage.

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