fgui_remove_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it explains that removal is treated as absence verification, that save=True persists then confirms the node is gone from disk XML, that external_reload=True reopens and requires save=True, and that the response strength field reports reload/disk/none. It does not mention undoability (fgui_undo is a sibling) or permission requirements, leaving a gap for a destructive mutation.

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?

Purpose and the routing rule to discard_document are front-loaded, followed by the verification semantics. Dense but each sentence carries information; the two paragraphs are slightly redundant in re-stating save=True across both sentences.

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 explained, yet the description still adds value by decoding the strength field. For a destructive tool with no annotations the coverage is good, though selector-parameter semantics and undo behavior remain unaddressed.

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% for six parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the semantics of save, external_reload, and verify's verification flow, but the three alternative selector parameters (object_id, object_name, object_path) are never explained — an agent cannot tell whether they are mutually exclusive or which to prefer.

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 ('删除非根对象' / delete non-root object) and immediately scopes it against a sibling, fgui_discard_document. An agent can distinguish this from discard_document without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it: '需要可靠回退时使用 fgui_discard_document' (use discard_document when you need reliable rollback). This is a concrete when-not rule plus a named alternative, not implied usage.

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