apply_plaid

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: twill causes crossing colours to mix along diagonals instead of averaging, and back_color's separation order changes the result (a version-specific quirk). It stops short of stating whether the fabric's existing texture is overwritten or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Front-loaded one-sentence purpose followed by a structured Args block; every line carries information. Slightly long but no wasted sentences, and the structured layout aids scanning.

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 5-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description is nearly self-sufficient on inputs and behaviour. It omits only the effect on any pre-existing fabric texture and the return/confirmation behaviour.

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 compensate, and it does: all five params are explained, including a concrete worked example of a 'sett' repeat, the rule that the repeat equals the sum of the widths, and the double-faced meaning of back_color. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema 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?

States a specific verb+resource: generating a plaid/tartan texture from a stripe sequence and applying it to a fabric. It is clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like set_fabric_texture, set_fabric_color, and apply_fabric_json because it names the specific plaid construction (crossing stripes mixed in a twill).

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 never says when to choose this over alternatives such as set_fabric_texture or apply_fabric_json, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g., a fabric must already exist). Usage is only implied by the verb 'put it on a fabric'.

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