fgui_set_property

Does 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 discloses two key behaviors: the modification is not saved and the action is tracked in the undo/redo transaction stack, which addresses reversibility and persistence. Missing details include side effects, return values, and error conditions, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and the key constraint, and every word contributes meaning.

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?

Despite the tool having 5 parameters, 2 required, and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides only minimal guidance. It omits any explanation of the whitelist concept, how to specify the target object among three options, or what values are acceptable. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for these gaps, making the description incomplete for reliable use.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate. It only implies the existence of property_name and value but provides no explanation of valid property names, value types, or the three object identification parameters (object_id, object_name, object_path). This is a significant gap for correct invocation.

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 (modify whitelisted properties) and a key constraint (does not save), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like fgui_save_document. The mention of undo/redo transaction stack further separates it from save and redo operations. However, the term 'whitelist' is ambiguous and not explained, leaving some purpose clarity gaps.

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 indicates this is a non-persistent operation that enters the undo/redo stack, implying when to use it: for reversible, in-memory property changes. It also implicitly warns against using it when persistence is required, though it does not name specific alternative tools. The usage context is reasonably clear.

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