fgui_import_image

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 discloses this is a disk write, that conflicts resolve via reject/auto-rename/replace, that save=True triggers verification against package.xml entries, and that external_reload requires save=True and yields a response strength of reload/disk/none. Missing only auth/permission or timeout characteristics.

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 dense but front-loaded sentences: the write nature and conflict behavior come first, then the save/external_reload semantics. No filler, though the second sentence packs several conditions into one run-on clause.

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 needn't be fully explained, and the description covers the conflict and save behavior well for a mutation tool. But with 11 parameters at 0% schema coverage, roughly half the inputs (folders, resource naming, timeout) are undocumented anywhere, leaving material gaps.

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 and it partially does: it explains save, external_reload (and its dependency on save), the conflict_policy enum values (拒绝/自动改名/替换 = error/auto_rename/replace), and the verify comparison behavior. However, exported, folder_path, resource_name, create_folders, and timeout_seconds remain completely undocumented.

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+resource combination (从绝对本地路径导入图片 = import image from absolute local path) and clarifies it is a disk-write operation. It is distinguishable from fgui_import_font/fgui_import_sound by the 'image' resource, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 explains what save/external_reload do internally but never states when to choose this tool over alternatives like fgui_replace_object_resource or the other import tools. No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use guidance.

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