garment_rebuild

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a key behavior: it replaces existing pieces and re-simulates. However, it does not mention whether this overwrites state irreversibly, whether snapshots mitigate that, or what conditions are required before calling it.

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 dense sentences: the first states the action with concrete examples, the second states the side effect. No filler, no repetition of the name.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description must carry more weight. It explains what the tool does and the primary parameter, but omits the meaning of snapshots and simulate_steps, prerequisites (an existing last built garment), and what success/errors look like.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It gives useful examples for the changes object but leaves snapshots and simulate_steps entirely unexplained, and it does not specify the accepted value format beyond examples.

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 ('Re-draft') with a clear target ('the last built garment') and explains the effect: replacing pieces in CLO and re-simulating. It is distinguishable from garment_build because it operates on the most recently built garment, though it does not explicitly compare to 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 phrase 'last built garment' implies this is for modifying an existing garment rather than creating a new one, which provides implicit context relative to garment_build. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, what prerequisites exist (e.g., a garment must already exist), or when to prefer other tools.

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