pattern_arrangement

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it warns that the operation may change the scene or write files, tells the agent to verify the resulting state, and defines timed-out operations as UNKNOWN requiring reconcile_operation before retry. This is actionable risk and failure-handling 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 tight and front-loaded: purpose first, then mode selection, then risk and failure semantics. The two 'not a world transform' sentences are partially overlapping but each adds a distinct clarification, and no sentence is 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies all critical operational context: read vs set, side effects, verification requirement, and timeout retry policy. The read result is implied by 'read/set ... parameters' and the tool name, so nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains arrangement_offsets ('omit to read; otherwise supply three integers') and gives the X/Y/offset ordering. It does not add detail for pattern_index, but the parameter name and required flag make its role clear.

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?

Description names a specific verb ('read/set') and resource ('verified arrangement X/Y/offset parameters'), and explicitly distinguishes the operation from world-space transforms and Euler rotation. An agent can immediately know what this tool does and what it does not do.

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 gives an explicit conditional: omit arrangement_offsets to read, otherwise supply three integers to set. It also states when-not: not for world translation or Euler rotation, so an agent will not misuse it as a transform tool. No alternative is named, but the when/when-not guidance is unambiguous.

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