create_outfit_from_garment_idsCreate an outfit from existing garment IDs. Pairs saved garments together into a saved outfit without uploading new images.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Optional human-readable outfit name | |
| is_active | No | Whether the outfit should be immediately active | |
| clothing_item_ids | Yes | IDs of clothing items to combine into an outfit |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate that the tool is mutating (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds minimal context by clarifying that it pairs existing garments without uploading new images, but it does not disclose additional side effects, permissions, or return behavior beyond what is implied.
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 consists of two concise sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and no redundant or extraneous information. Every word earns its place.
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 simple create operation with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's functionality. The lack of an output schema is not a major gap given the straightforward nature of the operation.
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 100% for all three parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter-level details. The description implicitly references the purpose of clothing_item_ids but adds no new semantics beyond the schema.
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 (create), the resource (outfit), and the source (existing garment IDs). It also distinguishes from upload-related tools by noting that no new images are uploaded, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 implies usage when garment IDs already exist and an outfit needs to be composed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives like propose_outfits or upload_garment_from_chat_file. No exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resources and have detailed descriptions, but several closely related families exist: create_credit_checkout_session vs mcp_create_credit_checkout_session, the propose_brief/confirm_brief/update_brief lifecycle, and the many avatar/upload entry points. An agent must read long caveats carefully to avoid selecting the wrong tool.
The vast majority of tool names follow a predictable snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_*, get_*, create_*, update_*, propose_*). The mcp_* prefix group and varied creation verbs (create/upload/save/add/generate) are minor deviations, though mcp_create_credit_checkout_session duplicating create_credit_checkout_session adds some confusion.
With 67 tools, this is an extreme mismatch by the rubric's own 50+ threshold, far beyond the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. Many tools are narrow lifecycle steps such as two-phase local uploads, app-only montage internals, and multiple ArtDirection authoring variants, making the agent-facing surface very heavy.
The core generation, brief, montage, and QA workflows are covered thoroughly with polling and result retrieval. However, notable lifecycle gaps exist: outfits, locations, avatars, and tags mostly have create/list/get but no update or delete, and delete_template is the only delete tool in the entire set.