fgui_create_component

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: default open-but-don't-save, default rejection on name conflict, that save=True triggers package/project save plus a package.xml comparison, and that component resources have no reliable asset reload with strength capped at disk. These are non-obvious operational facts. It stops short of explaining remaining behaviors (verify, exported, create_folders effects), so not a 5.

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 core action and defaults, then the save=True nuance. Slightly dense jargon (external_reload, strength 上限为 disk) but no wasted filler.

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 described, and the safety/default behavior is reasonably covered. But for a 12-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, leaving most parameter effects unexplained makes the definition only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 0% across 12 parameters, and the description only explains save (its save-time behavior) and implicitly the duplicate-name handling tied to auto_rename. Width, height, verify, exported, folder_path, extension_id, create_folders and open_after_create are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb+resource — creating a component document in a named package — which is clear and actionable. However, it does not differentiate itself from the many similar create tools in the sibling list (fgui_create_button, fgui_create_movieclip), so it does not reach a 5.

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?

It conveys default behaviors (opens but does not save, rejects on duplicate names) which implies intended usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no comparison against the sibling create tools. The agent must infer context.

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