set_reference

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

The description discloses important behavioral details: how the silhouette is extracted (alpha channel or background difference with threshold), the orientation convention (side view faces LEFT), and that the tool returns the extracted mask for verification. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what annotations would provide, though no annotations are present.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. The most important information (what it does, how silhouette extraction works, orientation caveat, return value) is packed efficiently. The orientation caveat is front-loaded before the flip parameter explanation.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: extraction method, orientation, flip, threshold, and return value. It doesn't explain the 'name' parameter or provide examples, but the core usage is well covered.

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 compensate. It explains the meaning of 'view' (front/side/top), 'flip' (for right-facing references), 'threshold' (background difference threshold), and 'image_path' (reference image). The 'name' parameter is not explained, but the description covers most parameters meaningfully.

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 clearly states the action ('Attach a reference image'), the resource (reference image for a view), and the specific views ('front', 'side', 'top'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on reference image attachment, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when attaching a reference image for a specific view. It also gives practical guidance about the side view orientation and the flip parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for similar tasks.

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