place_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose non-obvious constraints: no free XYZ placement, arrangement-point routing, and the need to run simulate afterward for draping. It does not state overwrite behavior, return status, or failure modes, but the most important behavioral traits are covered.

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 well structured with a front-loaded purpose, two context sentences, and a compact Args list. Every line earns its place, though the Args block is necessarily detailed for a 7-parameter tool.

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 7 params, no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the key inputs and usage sequence sufficiently. It could be more complete by stating prerequisites or return/error behavior, but the agent has enough to call it correctly in the intended 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by explaining all seven arguments, including the relationship between position_x, position_y, and offset, the source of arrangement_index, and the 'Flat'/'Curved' shape_style meanings. This goes well beyond the bare input schema.

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 first line states a specific action and target: 'Place a pattern piece in 3D on an avatar arrangement point.' It distinguishes this from 2D manipulation siblings like move_pattern_2d by explicitly noting the API has no free XYZ move/rotate and that placement goes through arrangement points.

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 gives a clear post-step ('Run simulate afterwards to drape') and explains the arrangement-point mechanism, including sourcing arrangement_index from get_arrangement_points. It does not explicitly list exclusions or compare with other placement/move tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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