Here is my aspect advice for Fate.
For the character aspects on a player character’s sheet, sure, stick to the advice from your typical Fate book. That’s fine for those aspects.
Aspects added in play are a little more restricted since aspects are true.
Is the a consequence on a character (whether it’s a player character or an enemy)? Then please don’t bypass the stress tracks and defense roll system. No fair trying to put “decapitated” on that big bad evil guy with create an advantage. And same goes for the GM; if that gnarly hardwood floor in the overfull inn wants to inflict a “poor night’s sleep” character consequence, give the players a chance to defend against that.
For aspects on locations or on situations, stick to things that you (the table) can live with as true. Some things (like “The city is completely destroyed”) that might be a stretch for a single create-an-advantage roll may be more appropriate as outcomes of challenges or contests. And some might not be appropiate at all and people can call bogus. Don’t overdo these restrictions because part of the tone that this game creates is wild things happening.
All roleplaying games have aspects because all roleplaying games have facts about the situations, locations, and characters. In Fate, there’s not more aspects, there’s just more accounting of those aspects because you might have free invokes on some of them, or might gain or lose fate points through others. When that goblin is using your “sand in eyes” aspect for a +2 defense against your attacks, you get fate points. The point of this all this accounting is to make the diegesis have an impact on the symbolic layer of the mechanics.
Most good games have some way of making a toppled-over bookcase help you. In other games, that bookcase might grant you “advantage” or “cover” or impose “difficult terrain” to your foes. In Fate, there’s a limit to how much it can help you (the invoke budget, made up of free invokes and fate points).
That limit is there for a kinda weaksauce historical reason, I feel—my theory is this: In a classic advantage/disadvantage game like GURPS, you pick a disadvantage like “fear of heights” and you get an upfront reward (ten character points) when selecting it. That’s not all bad, and maybe the pros of that upfront approach outweigh the fiddliness of all the on-the-fly accounting work in Fate, but some of the disadvantages include having to look that phobia up in a huge book (that’s from B150), and then there might be lots of heights in the adventure making the phobia a really huge deal, or there might be none, making it free points. The GURPS approach also exacerbates the chasm width problem. Fate scales the rewards and costs by how much the advantage or disadvantage is actually used, which also solves the lookup issue. Sounds awesome? But modern indies have shown that not everything needs to be accounted for in order to be fun at the table, so while it’s an interesting solution to “how do we cost advantages and disadvantages fairly” problem, that problem is maybe not really a problem we need to care that much about.
But that limit, weaksauce reason or not, also promote variety in play. That bookcase is only gonna be interesting for so long. (Each action you can spend no more than one Fate point in it, but you can use as many free invokes on it that you want as long as you have them.) If you want other advantages in the situations, you need to get then elsewhere, by swinging from chandeliers or brandishing legendary weapons or what have you. If you think this reeks of narrativium rather than physics, you’re right, but also you can spend more rolls to rack up more free invokes on that one toppled bookcase if you really want. The aspect accounting doesn’t limit what you can do, but it makes it so that what you do impacts the action econ of the game, both time (taking turns off to create more advantages with that same bookcase) and fate (through the points). Hitpoints in D&D have a narrativium component too, and they still work great in that game.