fl_select_pattern

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

Annotations already declare this as non-read-only and destructive; the description adds the post-selection verification of the getter, which is a useful behavioral detail beyond annotations. However, it does not clarify what state is affected or why the operation is flagged destructive, so the extra disclosure is partial.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and both clauses carry information: the selection action and the verification behavior. It is appropriately sized for this tool.

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?

The output schema plus fully described parameters make basic invocation clear, and the description states the action and the verify behavior. For a mutation tool with a concurrency guard, it would benefit from a sentence on when to use it and what state it changes, but the structured fields fill most gaps.

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 100%: pattern_number, expected_before, and session_fingerprint all have descriptive text, including the concurrency-guard semantics. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Select one pattern') and adds a second, distinctive behavior (verifying FL's current-pattern getter), so an agent can tell this is the pattern-selection tool rather than fl_list_patterns or fl_set_pattern_identity. It does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 action itself implies when to call it (when the agent wants to make a pattern current), but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool mentions. With dozens of pattern and mixer-selection siblings, the routing guidance is left to inference.

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