Set Hatch Gradient

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

The description discloses the key behavior that the hatch's pattern will be replaced by a gradient (via 'instead of'), which is useful. However, it does not discuss side effects like irreversibility, required permissions, or how parameters like one_color affect the outcome. Annotations only include destructiveHint=false, so the description carries some transparency burden but remains minimal.

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 of eight words with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose, making it maximally efficient.

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 complexity (8 parameters), the description alone is minimal. However, the schema thoroughly documents every parameter and an output schema exists, so the overall tool definition is complete. The description combined with structured data is sufficient for an agent to understand how to select and invoke the tool.

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 100% with clear descriptions for all 8 parameters (e.g., handle, color1, color2, name). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it earns the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fill') with a specific resource ('hatch') and clearly differentiates from siblings by stating 'with a gradient instead of a pattern.' This immediately distinguishes it from other hatch-related tools like hatch_edit or entity_create_hatch.

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 the tool is used when a hatch's fill should be a gradient rather than a pattern, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it falls just short of a 5.

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