Remove a non-root object from the current FairyGUI document without saving, enabling reversible UI edits. Specify the target by ID, name, or path for flexible selection.
删除非根对象但不保存；需要可靠回退时使用 fgui_discard_document。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_id | No | ||
| object_name | No | ||
| object_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.3Does 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 that the deletion is limited to non-root objects and does not persist, and it hints at rollback limitations by recommending fgui_discard_document. However, it omits other mutation-related traits like undo support, permissions, and impact on references.
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 efficiently conveys the action, scope, save behavior, and an alternative tool – no redundant words.
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 description lacks essential context: how to specify the object, what happens if no or multiple identifiers are provided, and behavior for root objects. Although an output schema exists, the operation's parameter semantics are entirely undisclosed, making the tool hard to use correctly.
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?
The description provides zero information about the three parameters (object_id, object_name, object_path). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description must compensate but fails to explain how to identify the target object, leaving agents without guidance.
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 action (delete), the target scope (non-root objects), and the persistence behavior (does not save). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fgui_discard_document, which is explicitly mentioned for rollback scenarios.
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 explicitly advises using fgui_discard_document when reliable rollback is needed, providing a clear alternative and context for when this tool is not the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.