Fl Pattern Create

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'create' and 'then name/size/colour it' but does not clarify whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or what happens to existing patterns. The phrase 'no name prompt' is ambiguous, and there is no mention of side effects, return values, or error behavior.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary action and its two modes. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately concise for a tool with this level of complexity.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and zero schema coverage, this description is incomplete. It does not explain all parameters, does not clarify the behavior for the select parameter, and provides no information about output or error conditions. The output schema exists but is not referenced. An agent would need to open the schema and infer much of the behavior, which is a significant gap.

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 explain all parameters. It references clone_of and the concept of 'name/size/colour' (which maps loosely to name, color, and possibly length_beats), but it completely omits the 'select' parameter and does not clarify the exact semantics of any parameter. The description adds minimal value over the schema and fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair ('create a pattern') and distinguishes between empty creation and cloning via clone_of. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like fl_pattern_set, but the core purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 for creating new patterns and mentions the clone_of alternative, but it never states when to prefer this tool over fl_pattern_set or any other sibling. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are given, leaving the agent to infer the intended use case.

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