assign_fabric

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses side effects ('May change scene or write files'), instructs verification ('Verify resulting state'), and clarifies timeout semantics ('A timed-out operation is UNKNOWN: reconcile_operation before any retry'). This goes well beyond a simple 'assigns fabric' statement.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then legacy parameter warning, then side-effect and timeout guidance. Every sentence adds distinct value with no filler.

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?

It covers purpose, key parameter semantics, side effects, and timeout behavior, but with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, it should also clarify what assign_option expects and what a successful result looks like. The instruction to 'Verify resulting state' is useful but does not say how.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the face parameter's legacy meaning and says to prefer assign_option, but it does not explain what assign_option values mean or clarify fabric_index/pattern_index beyond their names. This is a partial improvement over an empty schema, but leaves gaps.

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 opens with 'Assign and verify,' which states a clear verb and resource, and the face parameter explanation ('colorway option, NOT surface face') adds specificity about what is being assigned. However, it does not explicitly name the object being assigned (e.g., fabric to patterns/colorways) beyond the tool name, and it does not differentiate from siblings beyond that.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to prefer assign_option over the legacy face parameter, which is direct usage guidance. It also instructs to call reconcile_operation before any retry after a timeout, providing clear when-not-to-retry and fallback guidance.

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