fgui_set_controller

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose significant side effects: pages replaces the whole page set and reassigns page ids, requiring gearDisplay references to be re-verified, and external_reload requires save=True. It omits auth/permission requirements and reversibility, so it is strong but not complete.

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 is front-loaded, then flag semantics are grouped efficiently with a parenthetical warning for the destructive pages behavior. The stray mention of 'strength', which is not a parameter, is a small blemish but overall it is tight and well-organized.

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, and the key destructive side effects are covered. Still, for a 13-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, several parameters and the verify/strength relationship remain unexplained.

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 13 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains create, remove, pages, add_pages, selected_index, selected_page, external_reload and the save coupling, but leaves exported, home_page, auto_radio_group_depth (and the referenced 'strength', which maps to no actual parameter) 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?

The description states a specific verb set (create/modify/delete) and a precise resource (the current component's Controller), which an agent can distinguish from the read-only sibling fgui_list_controllers. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling or scoping rule, but the mutation purpose 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?

The description explains the operational modes (create=True, remove=True, pages replace, add_pages append, selected_index/selected_page select), which is effectively invocation guidance. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions beyond the external_reload/save coupling.

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