set_fabric_information

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently scopes the operation to metadata and explicitly denies an effect on drape, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose whether providing an information object replaces or merges existing fields, how null values behave, or what the success/error outcome looks like. Some behavioral ambiguity remains.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place. The primary action is front-loaded, the important field-name detail is second, and the key scoping caveat closes it. There is no filler or repetition.

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 simple setter with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what is set, an example of the structured field, where to get valid field names, and what it does not affect. Minor gaps such as merge/replace behavior and null semantics prevent a perfect score, but the tool is simple enough that the description is largely sufficient.

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 add meaning. It does so for the 'information' parameter by giving a concrete example ('{"Content": "60% Cotton, 40% Linen"}') and clarifying that field names follow CLO conventions via get_fabric_info. 'name' and 'fabric_index' are reasonably self-evident, so the description adequately compensates despite not describing every parameter.

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 ('Set'), a resource ('fabric'), and the specific fields being modified ('name and information fields'). The final sentence also distinguishes it from physics-related siblings by clarifying this is 'metadata only' and that drape comes from physical properties. An agent can clearly differentiate it from set_fabric_physics and similar 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?

Gives useful context about when to use the tool: it is about metadata, not physical drape behavior. It also points the agent to get_fabric_info for valid CLO field names. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative sibling, but the metadata-vs-physics distinction provides clear enough guidance.

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