Seamless pattern / texture (Pattern AI)

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive generation call. The one additive behavioral fact is 'Costs 1 credit,' which is genuinely useful and not in the structured data, but latency, async result retrieval, and failure behavior are unstated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the deliverable first and the cost last; every clause earns its place and there is 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?

For a 6-parameter generation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is produced but omits how the artifact is obtained (the presence of the sibling luw_get_result implies asynchronous retrieval), which an agent needs to complete a call correctly.

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%, including enum explanations for engine/size/format, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about prompt, engine, or size semantics beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (generate) and resource (seamless tileable pattern/texture) and enumerates concrete domains (tiles, wallpaper, fabric, terrazzo, wood, stone), which cleanly distinguishes it from the generic luw_generate_image sibling.

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 conveys the context of use ('ready to repeat across a surface'), which implies when a repeating pattern is wanted over a single image, but it never names an alternative tool or states when not to use it.

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