fgui_update_movieclip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states that frames are replaced when frame_paths is provided. It does not disclose whether this is destructive to existing frames in other cases, whether it requires an active document, how undo/saving is affected, or what side effects updating other properties might have.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the most functional detail about frame_paths is included. It is concise and readable, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing important operational context.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, this description is far too sparse. An agent cannot determine how to identify the target MovieClip, what the optional parameters do, whether frame_delays must align with frame_paths, or what happens when frame_paths is omitted.

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% across 12 parameters, and the description only adds meaning for frame_paths by calling it an ordered image sequence that replaces animation frames. The other 11 parameters such as fps, speed, swing, frame_delays, item_path, and package_name receive no semantic explanation.

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 names the operation ('更新已有 MovieClip') with a specific resource and rescope, and the '已有' wording distinguishes it from create/remove/get movieclip tools. The additional frame_paths condition describes a concrete behavior, though '更新' remains somewhat generic about what else can be updated.

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 like fgui_create_movieclip, fgui_set_property, or fgui_replace_object_resource. The only implied usage is 'existing MovieClip', but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instruction.

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