fgui_delete_package_item

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden and does so: irreversible, requires explicit force=True, deletes on-disk files, is not captured in the Agent undo stack, blocks on unsaved changes, and reports which references become dangling in the response. It even contrasts against the editor-native DeleteItem, which does not guard references at all.

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?

Four short lines, front-loaded with the action and its irreversibility, then each subsequent line handles one refusal/override case. No filler or repetition; every sentence conveys a distinct constraint.

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 destructive, unannotated tool the behavioral picture is unusually complete, and the existence of an output schema means return values need not be spelled out (the description correctly only notes that dangling references are reported back). The remaining gap is the unexplained save/verify flags and target-identifier 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 9 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only explains three of them (force, allow_dangling_references, close_open_documents). The target-selection parameters (url, package_name, item_path, item_name) and the save/verify flags are entirely unexplained, which matters because zero parameters are required and the agent must infer which identifier combination is valid.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('删除包资源') and enumerates the item kinds covered (组件/图片/字体/声音/MovieClip/目录), which separates it from document-level siblings such as fgui_remove_object. It never names an alternative tool outright, so sibling differentiation is inferred from scope rather than stated.

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 gives concrete operating conditions: the tool refuses when references exist unless allow_dangling_references=True, and refuses when a document is open unless close_open_documents=True. What is missing is guidance on when to prefer this over related tools like fgui_remove_object, fgui_find_unused, or fgui_query_references before deleting.

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