fgui_set_text_style

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 only states that a text style is set; it does not reveal side effects, whether it mutates persistent state, what verification or saving does (despite the verify/save parameters suggesting these behaviors), or how it interacts with selection. No contradiction with annotations exists because none are present.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified rather than optimally concise—for a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this brevity sacrifices needed information.

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 6-parameter tool with nested objects, an output schema, and zero annotation coverage, a one-line description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, selection semantics, save/verify behavior, or the 'unified' scope, so an agent lacks essential context to invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by mapping 'style' to a text style and indicating the target objects are TextField/RichText, but it does not clarify the three object-reference parameters (object_id/object_name/object_path) or the save/verify booleans, leaving most parameters semantically opaque.

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 verb (设置/set), a resource (TextField/RichText), and the scope (统一文本样式/unified text style), which is enough to identify the tool's basic operation. It can be distinguished from the sibling fgui_get_text_style (get vs set), though the meaning of 'unified' is somewhat vague and the distinction from fgui_set_property is not addressed.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention fgui_get_text_style, fgui_set_property, or any conditions, prerequisites (e.g., an open document), or exclusions. The one-line description leaves all usage decisions to the agent.

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