cocos_component_setUpdate component properties and references in Cocos Creator projects, then read back the results to verify the changes.
修改组件属性和引用并读回验证
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | Yes | ||
| projectId | Yes | ||
| instanceId | No | ||
| operationId | No | ||
| expectedRevision | No | ||
| runtimeInstanceId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'modify' aligns with that. The description adds one useful behavioral detail: operations are verified by reading back. But it does not clarify side effects, destructive scope, or what happens if verification fails. No contradiction with annotations.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words and gets straight to the point. It is concise but repeats the title exactly, adding little structural value or scoping beyond the tool name.
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?
This is a destructive tool with six parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation. The description does not explain required inputs, read-back behavior in detail, what kinds of properties/references are supported, or any safety caveats. It is far from adequate for an agent to invoke this tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters. It vaguely hints that 'properties and references' are involved, which maps loosely to the 'properties' field, but it does not clarify componentId, projectId, expectedRevision, or the nested structure. This is minimal compensation for a schema that provides no parameter 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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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 offers no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context, and no exclusions. It merely states the action ('modify component properties and references') without explaining scenarios, prerequisites, or related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.