map_cloth_to_patterns

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that CLO's per-pattern counts are inaccurate, so the mapping is derived from the flat layout, and that freezing/unfreezing reorders the vertex list and changes the mesh, invalidating the map. This warns the agent about state-dependent validity without overstepping into speculative details.

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 three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, timing, and a critical re-mapping caveat. It is front-loaded with the main action and follows with necessary context. While slightly dense, every sentence adds value and there is no filler.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it does, when to use it, why it is needed (CLO's counts are off), and when to re-run it. An agent has all the information required to invoke it correctly and understand its role in the workflow.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty (coverage 100%), so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly avoids fabricating parameter details and instead focuses on the tool's purpose and timing.

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 specific action ('work out which cloth vertices belong to which pattern') tied to a concrete consumer (get_cloth_bounds). It clearly differentiates from all sibling tools by describing a unique preparatory computation, so an agent knows exactly what it does and how it relates to other tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to run the tool ('while the pieces are still flat, after a few simulation steps, before draping') and provides a critical condition for re-running (after freezing/unfreezing). It doesn't list alternatives because none exist for this specific mapping task, but the context is clear and actionable.

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