pattern_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly states the creation action and the return value, but it does not mention side effects such as whether the new pattern becomes active, whether creation is undoable, or what happens when name is omitted.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with the return format in a second sentence. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant filler.

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 one-parameter creation tool, the description is mostly complete: it states the operation and the return value. The input schema covers the optional name default. The main gap is the lack of any mention of where the pattern is created or whether it becomes the current pattern.

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 needs to explain the 'name' parameter. It does not mention name at all beyond the schema's bare property title, leaving the agent to infer that the name argument names the new pattern.

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-resource pair: 'Create a new empty pattern.' The word 'empty' distinguishes it from pattern_clone, and 'new' distinguishes it from pattern_select or pattern_rename. It is immediately clear what the tool does.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pattern_clone. The 'empty' qualifier weakly implies a contrast with cloning, but there is no explicit 'use this when' or 'use X instead' guidance.

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