fgui_remove_transition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a destructive mutation (delete) and adds the valuable recovery behavior that fgui_undo can restore it. However, it does not cover failure modes or prerequisites beyond 'current component'.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the core action and the undo-recovery note are both front-loaded and useful.

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?

For a simple single-parameter deletion tool with an output schema, it covers the essential action and undoability. It is still slightly incomplete about required context (e.g., must have an active component) and error behavior, but those are not severe gaps.

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% and the description does not explain the name parameter except by implication. An agent must infer that 'name' is the name of the transition to delete; there is no mention of how to obtain valid names or any format/validation details.

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 uses a specific verb (删除/delete) and resource (a Transition in the current component), and it is clearly distinct from the sibling fgui_remove_transition_item because it targets the whole Transition, not an item. The undo mention does not obscure the purpose.

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 given about when to choose this over alternatives such as fgui_get_transition, fgui_upsert_transition, or fgui_remove_transition_item. There is also no mention of prerequisites like having a document/component open; only the phrase 'current component' implies context.

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