Set Hatch Gradient

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint: false and readOnlyHint is absent (meaning not read-only). The description 'Fill a hatch with a gradient instead of a pattern.' adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not disclose any side effects, such as whether the original pattern is permanently replaced or whether the operation is reversible, which would be valuable for a mutation tool. With annotations covering destructive hint, the description adds some but not substantial behavioral context.

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 immediately conveys the tool's core function. It includes the key contrast ('instead of a pattern') without wasting words. This is appropriately sized for a tool with a well-documented input schema.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (8 params, 3 required) and a full output schema, the description adds minimal contextual information beyond the schema. It is complete enough to understand the tool's primary purpose, but lacks details on when to use it compared to hatch_edit or entity_set_properties. Since an output schema exists, return values don't need explanation. However, a brief note on prerequisite conditions (e.g., the hatch must exist) would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any detail about parameter semantics, but since every parameter has a description in the schema, the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not explain how parameters interact (e.g., how one_color relates to color2 being unused), but the schema descriptions are sufficiently clear for an agent to proceed.

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 'Fill a hatch with a gradient instead of a pattern.' clearly identifies the tool's action (fill), resource (hatch), and the specific effect (gradient instead of pattern). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like entity_create_hatch (which creates a hatch) and hatch_edit (which edits hatch properties in general), though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool.

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 gives a clear context for when to use this tool: when you want to fill a hatch with a gradient instead of a pattern. However, it does not distinguish when to use this over hatch_edit or entity_set_properties, which could also modify a hatch's fill. There are no explicit exclusions or alternatives, so the agent must infer that this is the specialized gradient tool from the tool name and sibling list.

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