fl_set_pattern_length

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, lowering the bar. The description adds the detail that it uses a getter/setter pair with API 39+, which provides some technical context, but it does not describe what happens to the previous pattern length or any side effects.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core operation. The clause 'using Image-Line's API 39+ getter/setter pair' is somewhat technical but still earns its place by providing useful implementation context.

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?

Given the rich schema, output schema, and annotations, the core operation is adequately specified. However, the description lacks explicit usage context and does not clarify the destructive effect beyond the annotation, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding whether this is the right tool.

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%, so parameters are already individually documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 for complete schema coverage.

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 clearly states the action ('Set') and resource ('pattern length'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like fl_set_pattern_identity or fl_select_pattern, so it stops 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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it names no sibling tools or exclusion criteria. Usage is only implied by the tool name and title.

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