set_fabric_faces

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious behavioral trait: split-after-texture inherits the front's texture, which is exactly the kind of state interaction an agent would otherwise get wrong. It does not say whether the change is reversible or what happens to an existing back material when separate_back is False, leaving some gaps.

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 purpose and the critical ordering caveat are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the Args block is terse. The opening sentence is slightly wordy for what it conveys but nothing is 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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, ordering, and all parameter meanings. Return behavior and reversibility are unstated, but with no output schema and a low-stakes state change these are minor omissions.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate entirely, and it does: it defines separate_back's true/false semantics in terms of ownership of material and colour, and specifies back_color as [r, g, b] in 0-255 — format detail absent from the schema. fabric_index is identified as the fabric to change.

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 and resource: giving a fabric a back face of its own or rejoining it to the front. The double-faced/reversible use case (plaid front, solid charcoal back) makes the operation recognizable and separates it from siblings like set_fabric_color or set_fabric_texture.

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?

Gives a concrete ordering rule — 'Do this before texturing the front' — with the consequence spelled out (a back separated afterwards copies the front's texture). It names the scenario (double-faced/reversible cloth) but never points to a sibling alternative for the non-separated case, so 4 rather than 5.

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