fabric_set_texture

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it applies an image as a texture, but does not disclose whether this is a mutation (likely yes), whether it modifies the fabric permanently, whether it requires a running CLO instance or specific permissions, or whether it replaces existing textures. The description is minimal and does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting the base texture without undo).

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 concise sentence that communicates the main purpose without fluff. It is well-structured, though the placement of the map types in parentheses is slightly parenthetical but acceptable. It earns a 4 because it is efficient but slightly ambiguous about the primary use case (base colour vs. other maps).

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is inadequate. It does not explain how 'map' affects the operation, what happens if the image path is invalid, whether the fabric must be loaded first, or what success looks like (e.g., no return value). It mentions multiple map types but does not detail their differences, leaving the agent to guess.

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. The description mentions the 'map' parameter (base colour, normal, roughness, opacity) but does not explain the semantic meaning of 'fabric_index' (which fabric) or 'image_path' (what formats are supported, absolute vs relative). It adds some value for 'map' but leaves the other two parameters underspecified, which is insufficient given zero coverage.

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 (apply an image) and the target resource (fabric's base colour texture or other maps), which distinguishes it from siblings like fabric_set_color (which sets a color) and fabric_apply (which probably applies a fabric to a garment). However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it modifies an existing fabric's texture, which could be inferred but not stated.

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 (to set a texture on a fabric), but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like fabric_set_color (for colors) or fabric_apply (for applying a fabric). It also doesn't mention prerequisites like the fabric needing to exist or the image path being valid. The context provided by the 'map' parameter suggests usage for different map types, but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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