fgui_set_group_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: the version gate (0.8.8+), the advanced-group conditional that silently no-ops several fields otherwise, and the save/external_reload dependency chain. It omits mutation/reversibility framing and the fact that an open document and target object are required, keeping it below a 5.

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 field inventory are front-loaded and the sentences are dense rather than padded. The trailing clause about external_reload and 'strength 标明验证强度' is cryptic and refers to a 'strength' concept absent from the schema, which costs clarity.

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. Still, for a 7-parameter mutation tool with a nested free-form object and zero schema descriptions, leaving object identification and the save/verify flags unexplained leaves an agent guessing on several required decisions.

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 does enumerate the valid keys inside the nested `fields` object and the allowed layout values (horizontal/vertical or hz/vt), which the bare `additionalProperties: true` schema does not. But save, verify, object_id, object_name and object_path remain entirely undocumented, and the reference to a 'strength' marker matches no listed parameter.

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: modify the layout properties of a Group object, with a version qualifier (0.8.8+). This implicitly separates it from fgui_set_list_layout, but the description never names the sibling or explicitly distinguishes Group layout from list layout, so it stops short of a 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?

It surfaces real usage conditions – which fields only take effect when advanced=true, and that external_reload=True requires save=True and a document reopen to re-compare. However, it never states when to reach for this tool over fgui_set_property or fgui_set_list_layout, nor any when-not-to-use exclusion.

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