add_applique

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals key side effects such as 'a new internal line on the base marks each sewn edge', explains the optional reverse patch shares the same stitch line, and provides practical layer placement guidance. It does not discuss permissions, idempotency, or failure modes, but the additive behavior is well characterized.

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 opens with a clear purpose sentence and then provides a compact, well-organized Args block. Every parameter explanation earns its place, and the extra examples clarify tricky cases like reverse_layer and sewn_lines without padding.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers defaults, edge cases, and relationships between parameters. The main omissions are the return value/shape and possible error conditions, but the invocation semantics are thoroughly specified.

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%, yet the description compensates fully by explaining all nine parameters, including defaults, coordinate meaning, edge indexing for sewn_lines, layer semantics, and the relationship between reverse and reverse_layer. This goes well beyond the schema's bare type information.

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 and resource: 'Add an appliqué patch on a piece' and explains the patch is sewn in place. It also adds distinguishing detail about optional front/reverse patches, so an agent can infer the tool's role, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_topstitch or add_internal_shape.

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 intended use is implied by the first sentence: use this when adding an appliqué patch to a piece. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools such as add_internal_shape, add_hem, or add_topstitch.

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