fgui_set_relation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose meaningful traits: whole-replace (destructive to existing bindings), the version requirement, and the external_reload/save coupling plus verify semantics. It omits permissions, failure behavior, and whether the change is undoable.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the replacement scope and version come first, then the payload format, then the reload constraint. No filler sentences, though the nested brace/parenthetical formatting is hard to scan.

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. However, for a 7-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, missing guidance on how the target object is identified and what save/verify do leaves a real gap.

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 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It richly documents the relations item shape and sidePair direction vocabulary, but says nothing about object_id/object_name/object_path, save, or verify, leaving several parameters undocumented in both places.

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+resource: 整体替换对象的 Relation 绑定 (whole replacement of an object's relation bindings), plus a version gate (0.8.8+). That scope word 整体 clearly signals it is not incremental, and no sibling tool covers relations, so no sibling differentiation is needed.

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 one conditional dependency (external_reload=True requires save=True, and requires reopening the document to re-compare), but never states when to use this tool versus siblings like fgui_set_property, nor any prerequisite for identifying the target object.

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