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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description usefully adds that the plan is DnaCauldron's spreadsheet shape and that it 'Emits the FINAL construct as a record', which clarifies the write behavior, but it says nothing about failure modes, partial simulation results, or side effects on library documents. Adequate with annotations in place.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then the multi-level mechanic, then the input shape. No filler. Slightly redundant with the schema's own description of the plan format, but tight overall.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the 100%-covered schema handles parameters. The description supplies the conceptual model (dependency levels, products-feed-next-level) that an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Missing only explicit routing against single-level assembler siblings.

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 100%, including a detailed description of `plan` and `parts`, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description's restatement of the spreadsheet shape (`construct_name, part, part, …`) largely duplicates the schema, adding little beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Run a MULTI-LEVEL assembly plan') and names the underlying object (DnaCauldron `AssemblyPlan`). The 'multi-level / dependency levels / level's products become parts for the next' framing cleanly separates it from single-step siblings like gibson_assemble, golden_gate_assemble and assemble_operon.

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 multi-level dependency description implies the scenario this tool is for, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no sibling named as an alternative. An agent can infer usage from the 'several assemblies arranged into dependency levels' wording, but must do the routing itself.

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