fgui_insert_object

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 reveals two key behaviors: the operation is non-persistent (not saved) and is not undoable through the Agent property transaction stack. This is valuable beyond the tool name and schema, although it does not mention return values or other side effects.

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 that packs two essential caveats (no save, no undo via property stack) without excessive verbosity. It is concise, front-loaded, and every word contributes meaningful information.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, but the description only covers core behavior and key caveats. It omits parameter semantics, where the insertion occurs, and prerequisites (e.g., active document). While the output schema covers return values, the description is not fully complete for a tool with this complexity and 0% schema coverage.

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 for parameter meanings. It only hints at the 'url' parameter via 'ui:// resource' and leaves x, y, name, and insert_index unexplained. The description adds little value over the raw schema, resulting in a poor score for parameter semantics.

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 tool's function: inserting an existing ui:// resource. It also distinguishes itself from save operations by explicitly noting it does not save, and the tool name and sibling fgui_remove_object make the insert/remove contrast clear.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (to insert an existing ui:// resource) and provides important constraints: it does not save, so a separate save tool is needed for persistence; and structural operations are not undoable via the Agent property transaction stack, warning against relying on undo. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the save and undo caveats offer practical usage guidance.

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