fgui_create_movieclip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'create or replace' but does not explain side effects, whether it overwrites existing resources, if it requires an active document, or how conflicts are handled (though conflict_policy exists in schema). No mention of mutability, reversibility, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the core purpose. It is concise and to the point, but the brevity comes at the cost of missing crucial details. Still, it earns a 4 for being well-structured and not verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 12 parameters, zero parameter descriptions in the schema, no annotations, and no explanation of return values or outputs, the description is far from complete. It provides only a high-level summary, leaving agents without essential information to invoke the tool correctly. No guidance on required parameters, defaults, or use cases.

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, but it only references 'ordered absolute image paths' which maps to frame_paths. It does not explain fps, swing, exported, conflict_policy, folder_path, or any of the other 11 parameters. An agent would have to guess the meaning and valid values for most parameters, making this tool difficult to call correctly.

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?

The description clearly states the verb (create/replace) and resource (MovieClip), and specifies the key input (ordered absolute image paths). It distinguishes from fgui_update_movieclip by mentioning replacement, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like fgui_get_movieclip or fgui_remove_movieclip, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like fgui_update_movieclip. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., open document), when creation vs replacement is appropriate, or any conditions that would make this tool the right choice. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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