fgui_create_movieclip

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It does disclose non-obvious behavior: the frame sequence is delegated to FairyGUI native animation resources, save writes package.xml plus resource files and then verifies them, and external_reload unloads/reloads the asset with a response strength of reload/disk/none. It still omits that 'replace' destroys an existing MovieClip, permission requirements, and the effect of the timeout.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the whole thing is two sentences with no filler. The second sentence is dense but every clause carries information, so it is appropriately sized for a 15-parameter tool.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the description is thin. An output schema exists (so return shape is partly covered, and the description does explain the strength field), but the majority of input parameters and the destructive replace path are undocumented, leaving the agent under-informed.

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?

15 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains only save, external_reload, and implicitly frame_paths. fps, swing, repeat_delay, frame_delays, conflict_policy, create_folders, exported, folder_path, verify, and timeout_seconds get no semantic help, so the description fails to compensate for the schema 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?

States a specific verb pair (create or replace) and resource (MovieClip) with the input format ('ordered absolute image paths'), which cleanly separates it from fgui_update_movieclip and fgui_get_movieclip. It does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives, so it lands just short of 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?

Provides conditional guidance for two flags (save=True triggers verification; external_reload=True requires save=True), which implies when those modes apply. However, it never states when to use this tool versus fgui_update_movieclip or how conflict_policy should drive the choice, so usage is only partially implied.

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