fgui_import_font

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares this is a disk write, enumerates the conflict-resolution behaviors (reject/auto-rename/replace), and explains the save/external_reload interaction including the returned strength values. It omits permissions and reversibility, but adds substantive context beyond the schema.

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 compact paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose and mutation warning before the save/reload mechanics. Dense but every clause carries information; no 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 spelled out, and the description usefully mentions the strength field. However, for an 11-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, several parameters remain opaque, leaving the definition only partially 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 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains save, external_reload, conflict_policy and implies source_path's absolute-path requirement, but leaves verify, exported, folder_path, create_folders, resource_name and timeout_seconds undocumented, so the coverage gap is only partly filled.

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 ('从绝对本地路径导入字体' – import font from an absolute local path) plus the mutation nature. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like fgui_import_image and fgui_import_sound without needing to open the schema.

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 implies usage (importing a font asset, with conflict handling) but never states when to choose this over alternatives or what prerequisites apply. The sibling set makes the resource distinction obvious, so the omission is not misleading, just implicit.

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