add_topstitch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action and parameter semantics, without mentioning side effects, reversibility, prerequisites (e.g., pattern must be loaded), or potential error conditions. It also does not clarify what happens if both seam_index and pattern_index are provided. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 one-sentence purpose, then provides a well-organized, front-loaded argument list. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 complexity of two modes and six parameters, the description is reasonably complete but misses important context: it does not state that seam_index and pattern_index are mutually exclusive, does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., pattern geometry must exist), and does not describe the result or return value. These gaps could lead to incorrect invocations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full responsibility for explaining parameters. It does so thoroughly: style_index references list_topstitch_styles, seam_index references get_pattern_geometry, start_ratio/end_ratio define ranges, and pattern_index/line_index describe the alternative mode. This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's type/default information, though it does not cover edge cases like mutual exclusivity.

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 (Add topstitching) and the two possible targets (along a seam or along one pattern line). It is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like list_topstitch_styles or create_topstitch_style, which deal with styles rather than adding topstitch to geometry.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you want to add topstitching) and references where to obtain required indices (list_topstitch_styles and get_pattern_geometry). It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, but the context makes the usage clear. A slightly higher score would require explicit 'use X instead' guidance, which is absent.

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