cocos_set_uuid_property

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation operation ('Set'), implying changes to resources, but fails to detail critical aspects like required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, potential side effects, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and safety profile.

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, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of missing additional helpful details.

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 of a mutation tool with 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter meanings, usage context, behavioral traits, or output implications, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation by an agent.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters are documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'property' and '__uuid__ resource ref', which loosely maps to 'prop_name' and 'uuid', but provides no details on 'scene_path' or 'object_id', their formats, or how they interact. This insufficiently compensates for the 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 verb ('Set') and resource ('property to a __uuid__ resource ref'), with examples like 'SpriteFrame, AudioClip, etc.' that help clarify the type of resources involved. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like 'cocos_set_property' or 'cocos_link_property', which might also handle property assignments, leaving some ambiguity in 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sibling tools like 'cocos_set_property' or 'cocos_link_property'. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and minimal description.

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