set_fabric_width

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose the tool's behavior on its own. It only states the action ('set') and the semantic meaning of width, but does not mention that the operation overwrites the existing width, whether it validates the fabric_index, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, compact sentence that directly states the intent without filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and readable at a glance.

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?

The description is minimal and leaves key context uncovered: no usage guidance, no behavioral detail, and incomplete parameter semantics. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent could call it with a wrong fabric_index or misunderstanding about overwriting. Though the tool is simple, the description does not cover the essentials enough to be considered complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain the parameters. It clarifies that width_mm is in millimeters and that it refers to the marker/print width, which adds some semantics. However, it leaves fabric_index entirely as a bare integer name, with no explanation that it references a fabric from the fabric list. The partial compensation is insufficient for full clarity.

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 names the specific action ('Set'), the resource ('a fabric's usable width'), and clarifies its meaning ('the marker width in the print layout') with units ('in mm'). This is enough to distinguish it from sibling setters like set_fabric_information or set_fabric_physics, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_fabric_information. It does not state prerequisites (e.g., fabric must exist) or mention cases where the width should be set differently (e.g., for nesting vs print). The when-to-use context is entirely absent.

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