fgui_replace_object_resource

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that after saving, a disk-XML comparison is performed by default, and that Button states are unsupported. However, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, failure behavior, or side effects on the document, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the primary action and adding a limitation in the second sentence. It is free of fluff, but given the tool's complexity (8 params), it is perhaps overly terse, so I don't give a perfect score.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and zero schema coverage, the description leaves out essential context: what each parameter does, how object selection works, what the verification does, and when to pass save=true. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value concerns but not the parameter and usage 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does not mention resource_url, object_id, object_name, object_path, save, state, verify, or expected_type. The only faint clue is the reference to Image/Loader and Button states, which does not clarify any parameter's 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 states a specific action ('替换 Image/Loader 图片引用') and identifies the resource type (Image/Loader), distinguishing it from general tools like set_property and import_image. It also adds a constraint (Button states not supported) that further delimits scope.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like set_property or import_image. The only exclusion is Button states, but no alternative tools are named or conditions given. The reader must infer usage from the purpose, which is not enough.

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