Increase or decrease evenly

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, closed-world computation, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the craft-specific technique mapping (M1/k2tog for knitting, 2 sts in one/sc2tog for crochet) and that the result is a ready-to-use written instruction.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately backed by a concrete example, with no filler. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return value need not be explained (though the description still helpfully notes it returns the written instruction). Coverage is solid for a 5-parameter computation tool, with the only real omission being any explanation of the flat-vs-round 'worked' option.

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 60%, with 'change', 'stitches', and 'stitch' already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the increase/decrease and knitting-vs-crochet semantics but says nothing about the 'worked' parameter (flat vs. round) or the enum meanings, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 fits.

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 (spaces increases/decreases evenly) with the exact resource (stitches across a row or round) and names the concrete output (the written instruction). The worked example "increase 13 stitches evenly across 97" makes the function unmistakable and clearly distinct from count_stitches or adjust_for_gauge.

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 example implies when the tool applies, and the mention of both knitting and crochet techniques hints at scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among siblings such as adjust_for_gauge. Usage must be inferred.

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