pattern_edit_points

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

No annotations, so description must disclose behavior. It does: explains corner vs curve points, warns about distortion, and suggests simulating afterward. However, it doesn't state side effects like whether changes are reversible or if errors occur for invalid indices.

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?

A single paragraph that front-loads the action, then details format, prerequisites, caveats, and alternatives. No wasted words; each sentence adds value.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, usage, caveats, and next step (simulate). Lacks return-value info but that's minor for a mutation tool with no output schema.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description fully explains moves format (absolute/relative, mm units) and references pattern_info for point indices. It adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 'Move outline points of a piece' with specific details on absolute/relative moves. Clearly distinguishes from sibling pattern tools by referencing pattern_info for indices and garment_rebuild for built garments.

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?

Explicitly recommends garment_rebuild for built garments, reserves this for straight-edged pieces or small tweaks, and instructs to use pattern_info first. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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