set_nesting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the tool applies settings immediately, if it requires the fabric to be nested first, or if it modifies the arrangement permanently. The description only describes parameters, not side effects or execution behavior.

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 one long sentence that front-loads the main purpose but becomes convoluted with embedded explanations. It is not overly long, but the structure mixes purpose and parameter details awkwardly, making it less scannable.

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?

Given 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to define key parameters like 'grain' and 'colorways', and does not explain what the tool does with the settings or what the expected outcome is. The agent would struggle to call it correctly without additional knowledge.

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 by explaining parameter meanings. It partially explains the allowed values for 'buffer_spacing_mm'? Actually it explains the turning options (1-way, 2-way, 4-way) and fixed position, but it does not describe 'grain', 'colorways', or 'pattern_index' specifically. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 clearly states the tool sets nesting settings for the print layout, and lists the specific aspects: spacing, colorways, and per-piece turning options. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'nest_patterns' by focusing on configuration rather than execution, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.

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 provides context on what the tool controls but does not state when to use it versus other tools like 'nest_patterns' or 'set_fabric_information'. There is no explicit guidance on prerequisites or conditions that would make this tool the appropriate choice.

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