pattern_set_length

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states only the basic action and does not disclose whether existing pattern content is preserved, whether the length change is destructive, what constraints apply to bars, or whether the pattern must exist.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the key idea is front-loaded. However, brevity is achieved by omitting context that would be valuable for correct invocation.

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 two required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse for an agent to confidently construct arguments or anticipate results. It would benefit from at least explaining index and the effect of setting the length.

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 clarify both parameters. It clarifies that bars represent a length in bars, but it leaves the index parameter unexplained and does not mention indexing, bounds, or required value types beyond the schema's basic types.

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 ('set') and resource ('pattern length') with a unit ('bars'), so the core action is clear and not a tautology. It is not misleading, but it does not differentiate from sibling pattern tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus related pattern tools, and no mention of prerequisites such as selecting a pattern or using an index from another call. The intended usage is only implied by the name and short description.

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