fgui_insert_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers the crucial disclosure that structural operations cannot be undone by the Agent property transaction stack, plus the save/verify/external_reload interplay and the response 'strength' field. It stops short of permission/document-state requirements.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by only the behavioral facts that matter. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

Output schema exists, and the description usefully explains the 'strength' return field, so return values are largely covered. However, for an 8-param mutation tool with no annotations, it omits prerequisites such as required active document/selection state and insertion target context.

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%, so the description must compensate for 8 params. It explains the non-obvious booleans well (save, external_reload, and implicitly verify via disk comparison), but x, y, name, url, and insert_index get no added meaning beyond their self-descriptive titles.

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: '插入已有 ui:// 资源' (insert an existing ui:// resource). This distinguishes it conceptually from the create_* siblings that build new objects, though it never names an alternative. The action is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no comparison against sibling insertion/creation tools. The notes about save/verify behavior are parameter mechanics rather than selection guidance, so an agent gets no help deciding when this tool is the right choice.

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