pattern_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the point type semantics and line ordering, which is helpful for input, but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., does it replace an existing pattern, become active?), permissions, or what the return value is. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap; the agent is left uncertain about state changes and required context.

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 compact two-sentence block that front-loads the core purpose and then packs essential input details (point types and line numbering) efficiently. It does not waste words, though it could be slightly better organized with a bulleted list for the type codes. Overall it is well-structured and appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 that creates complex pattern geometry, the description covers the input format thoroughly, including point types and line ordering, and touches on placement via arrangement. However, it does not mention what happens after creation (e.g., whether the new pattern becomes active, how to reference it later), nor does it state any prerequisites like an open scene. Given no output schema and no annotations, the agent lacks guidance on post-conditions and broader workflow integration.

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 adds substantial meaning to the 'points' parameter by detailing the array format, type codes, and line numbering, and it indirectly explains 'arrangement' by referencing arrangement_points. However, the 'name' parameter is completely ignored; the schema only gives a default of ''. Since the description covers two of three parameters meaningfully but omits one, it earns a 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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'Create a pattern piece from outline points', and specifies the exact input format (points array with types) and the coordinate system (mm, Y up). It differentiates from siblings like pattern_edit_points (modify existing) and pattern_list (list) by focusing on creation. The line-numbering rule is an additional specific detail that makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 creation for new pattern pieces but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pattern_edit_points or pattern_ops. It does mention 'Optionally place it on an arrangement point (see arrangement_points)' which provides a hint for arrangement usage, but it lacks explicit exclusions or conditions. An agent would have to infer the when-not from the verb 'create'.

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