fgui_upsert_transition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is atomic and undoable, and that it does a complete replacement. However, it omits many behavioral details such as prerequisites (open document), what happens to existing transitions, and side effects on related items. It adds some context but not enough for a mutation tool without annotation support.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core operation and atomicity. It is appropriately short and front-loaded, though it lacks any structural breakdown or additional context that might be warranted for such a complex tool.

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 tool with a very large schema (many nested types) and no annotations, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the transition definition structure, required fields, usage context (e.g., which document it applies to), or any return/error behavior. The output schema exists but does not substitute for the missing operational context.

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% and the description does not explain the single 'transition' parameter or its structure. While the parameter is a self-contained object definition, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and with zero coverage it fails to compensate. The agent must infer semantics from the schema alone.

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 verb 'create or completely replace' and the resource 'Transition', which distinguishes it from sibling tools that add/update individual items. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it gets a 4 rather than 5.

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 phrase 'declaratively create or completely replace' implies a whole-object operation, and the atomic undo/redo note hints at safe usage. But there is no explicit 'when to use vs. not use' or reference to alternatives like fgui_add_transition_item or fgui_update_transition_item, so guidance is only implicit.

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