fgui_update_movieclip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful side effects: save=True persists package and project then compares package.xml entries and resource files, and external_reload unloads/reloads the asset before comparing, with response strength reported as reload/disk/none. But it omits failure modes, permission needs, and the effect on settings not mentioned for a 15-parameter mutation.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences (semicolon-joined) with the primary action front-loaded ahead of the secondary save/reload details. Dense but no filler; it could be split for readability but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 15-parameter update tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers only a small fraction of the surface. The existence of an output schema excuses explaining return values, but the parameter and error-behavior gaps leave an agent without enough to invoke it reliably.

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 15 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It only explains frame_paths, save, and external_reload; the remaining twelve parameters (fps, speed, swing, url, item_name, item_path, frame_delays, package_name, repeat_delay, timeout_seconds, verify, exported) are left undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ("更新已有 MovieClip") and clarifies the key behavior of replacing animation frames when frame_paths is supplied. It implicitly distinguishes itself from fgui_create_movieclip / fgui_get_movieclip / fgui_remove_movieclip by saying "已有" (existing), though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 gives conditional guidance for parameters (external_reload requires save=True, frames replaced only when frame_paths is passed), which is useful. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives like fgui_create_movieclip or fgui_set_property, so usage is only implied.

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