fgui_remove_transition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it does add real behavioral context: the removal is recoverable via fgui_undo, save=True persists to disk, and external_reload requires save=True. It stops short of disclosing failure behavior for a non-existent name or any permission prerequisites.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and recoverability, then a second short paragraph on save/verify semantics. Dense but each sentence adds operational 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations, it covers recoverability, persistence, and verification strength (reload/disk/none). An output schema exists so return shape need not be explained, though missing error/prerequisite cases keep it from being fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains save and external_reload (including the save=True dependency) and implies verify via '默认确认', but does not clarify what verify=False does or what 'name' refers to (transition name vs. component). Roughly half the parameters are meaningfully covered.

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 (删除/remove) and resource (Transition) with an explicit scope ('当前组件中的一个'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like fgui_remove_transition_item, fgui_upsert_transition, and fgui_get_transition.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and the description names fgui_undo as the recovery path, which is a useful routing hint. However, it never states when to choose this tool over fgui_remove_transition_item or fgui_upsert_transition, nor any preconditions such as an active/selected component.

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