fgui_remove_movieclip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load well: it declares the operation irreversible, states the force=True requirement, describes save=True verification against package.xml, and notes no reload primitive exists (strength capped at disk). That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare 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?

One front-loaded paragraph that leads with purpose and irreversibility, with no wasted sentences. Some dense jargon ('诚实的重载基元', 'strength 上限为 disk') is terse but not bloated.

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 no explanation, and the mutation's risk profile is disclosed. However, for a 7-param no-annotation tool it leaves the target-identification parameters ambiguous, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only touches force, save, and verify. It never explains how the target is identified (url vs item_name/item_path/package_name), leaving the most important selection parameters 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 and resource: '删除 MovieClip 包资源' (delete MovieClip package resource). This distinguishes it from fgui_remove_object/fgui_remove_transition by resource type, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 a prerequisite ('必须显式 force=True') but no when-to-use conditions or exclusions relative to sibling removal/update tools. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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