fgui_add_transition_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful verification behavior (save=True compares the disk XML item count; external_reload requires save=True and performs a close/reopen comparison; response strength is reload/disk/none). However it says nothing about mutation side effects, permissions, or reversibility for a write operation.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, with the save/external_reload mechanics following. No filler, though the response-strength detail is somewhat compressed.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be documented, and the description usefully covers the verification workflow. But for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, key gaps remain around the item structure, verify, and mutation semantics.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only touches save and external_reload (including the save=True dependency). The required params name and item, plus the verify flag, are left entirely unexplained by both schema and description.

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 specific verb and resource: adding a typed keyframe track item ('类型化关键帧轨道项') to a Transition. This clearly distinguishes it from the remove/update siblings by the 'add' action. It stops short of naming the specific alternatives (fgui_upsert_transition, fgui_update_transition_item) it must not be confused with.

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 explains the effect of save and external_reload, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus fgui_upsert_transition or fgui_update_transition_item. There are no prerequisites or exclusions stated; the reader must infer that 'add' means creating a new item.

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