fgui_verify_transition

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden and does so well for the safety profile: it explicitly states no document modification and no save. It also goes beyond a plain return-value restatement by explaining that summary.valid counts only errors and that position_outside_canvas is a warning whose out-of-bounds coordinates are legitimate for slide animations — non-obvious semantics an agent would otherwise misread.

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?

Three short lines: purpose first, mutation/scope constraint second, result-semantics caveat last. No filler, and the most misread-prone detail (warning vs error) is placed where it will be seen.

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 structure needn't be explained, and the read-only nature plus default-validate-all behavior are covered. The only real hole is the undocumented check_bounds parameter, which matters for interpreting bounds-related findings.

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 explain 'name' (omitted = validate all Transitions), but 'check_bounds' is never mentioned; its relationship to the XY position range check and to the position_outside_canvas warning is only inferable.

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 (只读校验 / read-only verify) plus the exact resource (current component's Transition) and enumerates what is checked: target object, keyframe values, nested references, XY position range. This clearly separates it from siblings like fgui_list_transitions, fgui_get_transition, fgui_verify_document, and fgui_preview_animation.

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 scoping guidance ('省略 name 时校验全部 Transition') and implies when to reach for it by calling itself read-only/non-mutating. However, it never names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use it (e.g., versus fgui_verify_document or fgui_preview_animation), so the agent must infer routing.

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