fgui_remove_movieclip

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses two critical behaviors: the operation is irreversible ('不可逆资源操作') and requires explicit force=True ('必须显式 force=True'). This is essential for safe invocation and goes beyond the schema, which only shows force defaulting to false without indicating it's mandatory for deletion. This is strong behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the safety caveat. It is appropriately concise with no filler. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting parameter details, which is penalized under other dimensions.

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 5 optional parameters with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to identify the target movieclip, the relationship between parameters, or the expected behavior with multiple identifiers. An agent cannot reliably construct a valid call.

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% – no descriptions in the input schema. The description only mentions force, but fails to explain the identifiers: url, item_name, item_path, and package_name. Without this, an agent cannot determine how to specify the target movieclip. This is a critical gap.

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 and resource: '删除 MovieClip 包资源' (Delete MovieClip package resource). This is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like fgui_remove_transition and fgui_remove_object, which target different resource types. It could be more explicit about what 'package resource' encompasses, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context for invocation. The irreversibility warning is a behavioral note, not a usage guideline. An agent has no indication of when to choose this over fgui_remove_object or fgui_remove_transition.

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