set_shrinkage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only defines the percent scale and ranges; it does not mention what happens when width_percent or height_percent is null, how invalid values are handled, whether the change is reversible, or what side effects occur on the pattern's fabric.

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 core formula is front-loaded in one sentence, and the parameter list is compact and informative. There is no filler or repetition beyond the necessary parameter explanations.

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, all parameters are well documented and the scale is clear. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description is missing expected return/error behavior and the meaning of null values, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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?

The schema only names pattern_index, width_percent, and height_percent; the description adds crucial meaning: width is weft, height is warp, valid ranges are 50-150, and 100 means no shrinkage. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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: 'Set a piece's fabric shrinkage', with precise percent semantics (100 = no shrinkage, 97 = shrinks 3%). This is clearly distinct from sibling setters like set_fabric_information or set_fabric_width because it targets the shrinkage property specifically.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus related setters such as set_fabric_information, set_fabric_physics, or set_fabric_width. There are also no stated preconditions, such as whether the pattern must exist or whether a fabric must already be assigned.

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