fgui_update_transition_item

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 meaningful behavior: undo/redo reversibility, that save=True triggers a disk-XML item-count comparison, and that external_reload requires save and yields a strength of reload/disk/none. However it omits the meaning of the verify parameter, permission requirements, and what happens without save (in-memory only?).

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Efficient for a tool with this much behavioral nuance to convey.

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, and the description covers the save/verify workflow reasonably. Still, for a mutation tool with zero annotations and 0% schema coverage, the unexplained verify parameter and unspecified preconditions leave gaps.

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% across 6 parameters. The description adds real meaning for save and external_reload (including the save dependency), and '指定索引' maps to item_index, but verify is never explained and the item payload structure is left entirely to the schema. It covers only part of the parameter surface.

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: replace (替换) the keyframe item (关键帧项) at a specified index of a Transition. This is precise enough to distinguish it from siblings like fgui_add_transition_item and fgui_remove_transition_item, though it doesn't name them 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?

Provides useful context that changes can be reverted via fgui_undo/redo and explains the save/external_reload workflow, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over fgui_upsert_transition or the add/remove transition-item siblings. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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