Convert internal shapes to base lines or back to internal shapes in CLO3D patterns. Use this to switch between editable base lines and internal shape representations for pattern editing.
Convert an internal shape to a base line ("base") or back ("internal").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ||
| pattern_index | Yes | ||
| internal_shape | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool converts between internal and base line representations, but it does not say whether the operation mutates the existing shape, returns a new shape, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. This is a meaningful gap for what is likely a modifying operation.
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 very short and the one sentence directly states the operation, which is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it omits essential parameter and behavioral context, so the brevity is more under-specification than effective conciseness.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three completely undocumented parameters, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call it correctly with confidence. The agent still cannot tell what pattern_index refers to, what values 'to' accepts beyond the two quoted examples, or what the result of the conversion is.
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 explain the three parameters. It gives partial meaning to 'to' by naming 'base' and 'internal', and it clarifies that 'internal_shape' is the internal shape to convert, but it leaves 'pattern_index' completely unexplained and does not give precise accepted values or constraints.
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 states a clear verb and resource: converting an internal shape to a base line or back. It also distinguishes the two directions ('base' and 'internal'), which makes the tool's core function understandable. However, 'base line' is not fully defined and the description does not clearly differentiate this from sibling shape-editing tools like add_internal_shape or offset_internal_line.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided about when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as add_internal_shape, offset_internal_line, or mirror_pattern. The phrase 'or back' implies bidirectional conversion, but there is no context about prerequisites, typical workflows, or when conversion would be appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.