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

Annotations only tell the agent it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world write. The description adds real context beyond that: where the value lands (Settings · Lab, user-visible and editable), that panels signal when the lab default is in effect, and that projects can still override. It omits any note that the same tool can erase preferences via the clear parameter, which is a minor disclosure gap.

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 purpose, then trigger, then persistence semantics, then exclusion — a sensible ordering with no filler. It runs a bit long across four clauses, and the Settings · Lab detail is slightly parenthetical, but every sentence carries information.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the remaining burden is scope and side effects, which the description handles well (persistence location, override behavior, sibling exclusion). The one unaddressed area is the clear/forget mode, which only the schema surfaces.

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%, so the schema already explains every parameter, including the clear enum values and the polymerase 'keep' default. The description only groups them conceptually ('polymerase, the primer length and GC windows, and the expression host') without adding syntax or interaction rules, so the baseline of 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: 'Remember what this lab uses' and enumerates exactly which settings persist (polymerase, primer length and GC windows, expression host). It explicitly scopes itself away from the nearest sibling concern — enzyme supplier order — routing that to Enzyme Collections.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger with verbatim user phrases ('we use Q5', 'our primers are 20 to 24 nt') and a hard exclusion ('Enzyme supplier order is saved in Enzyme Collections, not here'). An agent knows both when to call it and when not to.

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