filmora_fill_file_dialog

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation nature is already known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'no shell', default leaves dialog open for inspection, existing files required for Open/Import, and Save As requires a new filename. It does not explain what happens on submit or on error, but the added details are substantive.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and default behavior. Each subsequent sentence adds necessary prerequisite or constraint information without any filler. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with destructiveHint=true and no output schema, the description covers usage prerequisites and path constraints well. But it omits the consequences of submitting (e.g., what action is triggered), failure modes (e.g., file not found), and any return behavior. These gaps leave an agent without full context for safe invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the 'paths' parameter (absolute local paths, existing files for Open/Import, new filename for Save As) and implicitly covers 'save_as'. However, the 'submit' parameter is not described at all, leaving a key control undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Fill an observed native file chooser'. It also distinguishes itself from custom Qt dialogs, which require different handling, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings. The term 'observed' is slightly opaque but does not obscure the core action.

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?

Explicit prerequisite is given: 'Select the actual dialog via filmora_select_window first'. It also states when NOT to use it: 'Custom Qt dialogs need explicit UI actions'. Conditions for Open/Import vs Save As are covered, though the alternative tool for custom dialogs (filmora_ui_action) is not named.

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