topstitch_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the meaningful scope behavior: seams and free_edges both default true and pattern_indices defaults to all pieces, which tells the agent the operation is global unless narrowed. It does not say whether existing topstitching is replaced, whether the operation is reversible, or what it returns – a notable gap for an unannotated mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then a compact Args list. The parenthetical edge enumeration is slightly long but earns its place by clarifying what a 'free outline edge' is. No redundant 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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, defaults, and how to source the style_index. The main missing piece is the side-effect/reversibility story, which is more important here because no annotations exist.

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 compensate, and it does document all four parameters in the Args block, including defaults ('Only these pieces (default: all)') and a pointer to sibling tools for style_index. It could go further on the semantics of seams vs free_edges interaction (e.g. can both be false), but coverage is solid.

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 (topstitch) and resource (whole garment: every seam and/or free outline edge) with concrete examples (hems, front edges, cuffs, collar tops, contrast stitching). An agent can distinguish it from add_topstitch and set_topstitch_style without opening schemas.

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?

Explains the practical scenario ('contrast edge stitching of a reversible or unlined jacket') and routes the agent to list_topstitch_styles / create_topstitch_style for obtaining style_index. However it does not state when to prefer this over add_topstitch (single-seam variant) or any exclusions, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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