fgui_set_gear_display

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose meaningful non-obvious traits: the clear-on-None semantics, partial-update behavior for pages, and the external_reload=True => requires save=True condition with a re-comparison after reopen. It stops short of describing auth/permission needs or what mutation failure looks like.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the primary action and scope come first, followed by compact per-parameter notes. Every line carries information, though the dangling 'strength' reference adds minor noise.

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 described. But for an 8-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation and zero schema-description coverage, the definition leaves the object-targeting parameters and save semantics under-specified, which an agent needs in order to call it correctly.

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. It well documents controller, pages (id/name list plus the '0,1' comma-string form), and external_reload, and touches save indirectly, but the three object-identification parameters (object_id, object_name, object_path) go entirely unexplained. It also references a 'strength' parameter that does not exist in the schema, which is mildly confusing.

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: setting the gearDisplay linkage on an object, with the fields involved (controller + visible pages) and a version note (0.8.8+). An agent can tell what the tool changes. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like fgui_set_controller or fgui_set_property, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Gives real usage conditions for the core parameters ('controller=None/empty clears the linkage', 'omitting pages keeps existing pages'), which is useful operational guidance. However, it offers no when-to-use framing versus alternatives (set_controller, set_property, set_relation) despite a crowded sibling set, leaving selection to inference.

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