fgui_remove_transition_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the operation deletes an item and that fgui_undo can restore it, which is useful for a destructive action. However, it omits preconditions, invalid-index behavior, and whether changes require saving.

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 filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the undo note adds useful information without bloating the text.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the action and reversibility. However, it leaves the name parameter ambiguous and omits prerequisites such as an open document or existing transition. An agent could likely infer the intent, but the description alone is not fully complete.

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. It clarifies that item_index refers to the index of the keyframe item, but it never explains what name refers to, presumably the transition name. This is only partial compensation for the undocumented parameters.

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 the specific verb '删除' (remove) and identifies the resource as a keyframe item at a specified index within a Transition. It is clear enough to distinguish from removing an entire transition, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus fgui_remove_transition, fgui_update_transition_item, or fgui_add_transition_item. The mention of fgui_undo is recovery information, not selection guidance, so usage must be inferred entirely from the operation name.

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