game_ui_popup

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Show/hide/popup', which is a high-level summary of some actions but omits important behaviors like 'get_info', what popup_centered does differently from popup, and what the caller should expect as a result or side effect. The tool's effects and return behavior are not meaningfully revealed beyond the schema's action list.

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 the key action and target type; there is no filler. It could be slightly more informative without becoming bloated, but the brevity is not a serious flaw here because the schema covers much of the remaining detail.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a non-trivial action enum, the description is too thin to be considered complete. It does not explain what get_info returns, the difference between popup and popup_centered, how size/text/title are used together, or whether any state changes are persistent. An agent would need to open the schema and infer most of the operational context.

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 describes 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of context by clarifying that nodePath refers to Popup/Dialog/Window nodes, which is useful, but it does not add meaning to size, text, title, or action beyond what the schema already says.

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 states a clear action scope ('Show/hide/popup') and the target resource type ('Popup/Dialog/Window nodes'), which conveys the tool's core purpose. It is understandable but does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related UI tools like game_ui_control, which could also manage visibility of UI nodes.

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 phrase 'for Popup/Dialog/Window nodes' gives an implicit usage context, suggesting this tool is appropriate for manipulating popup-style UI elements. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions, such as when a plain Control node should be handled by game_ui_control instead.

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