fgui_set_property

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 real behavior: the mutation is recorded in an undo/redo transaction stack, save triggers a disk XML comparison, external_reload closes/reopens the document, and the response strength field (reload/disk/none) reports verification level. It still omits required permissions and failure/error behavior.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then a tight sentence each for save, external_reload, and the strength response field. Little waste, though the save/external_reload clauses are dense enough to need careful reading.

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 re-explained, and the description does cover the salient transaction/verification behavior. The biggest gap is the unresolved object-identification model among three optional selectors, which an agent needs in order to call an 8-parameter mutation 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 description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it only documents save and external_reload (and gestures at verify via the response 'strength'). The three mutually-exclusive object selectors (object_id/object_name/object_path), value, and property_name are left entirely unexplained, including which identifier wins when several are supplied.

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 (修改/set) and resource (白名单属性/whitelisted properties), plus a distinguishing trait — that the operation enters the Agent property undo/redo stack. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names a sibling such as fgui_set_text_style or fgui_set_list_layout to disambiguate which property-setting tool to pick.

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 context is implied through the save/verify/external_reload mechanics (e.g. external_reload requires save=True), but there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance and no statement of prerequisites such as an open document or a selected object.

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