pattern_set_arrangement

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

The description states the core action but, with no annotations, leaves the full burden on itself. It does not disclose whether existing placements are replaced, whether an avatar must be loaded, or what errors/side effects may occur.

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 tight sentence with concrete point examples. No filler words; it earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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 simple two-parameter placement tool, the examples are useful, but the description omits the meaning of the 'pattern' parameter, how to discover valid arrangement points, and behavioral details such as whether existing placements are replaced. It is minimally viable but not fully self-sufficient.

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 compensate. It gives valid examples for 'point' but never explains what 'pattern' refers to, what format it expects, or where valid values come from.

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 ('Place') with a clear resource ('avatar arrangement point') and concrete examples of valid point names (Body_Front_Center_3, Leg_Skirt_Back). It is reasonably distinct from sibling tools like arrangement_points, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when to call arrangement_points first, or what prerequisites must be met. The action is clear, but the decision context is absent.

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