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

Annotations only tell the agent this is non-readOnly and non-destructive; the description adds the important behavioral fact that a NEW record is emitted and that downstream nodes consume the revcomp rather than the original. It does not cover failure modes (empty subject, invalid bases) or whether the new record is persisted in the project.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core action is front-loaded and the second sentence earns its place by explaining the consequence for downstream nodes.

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 sequence transform with a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description covers what the tool does and its effect on the workflow graph. Remaining gaps (persistence of the new record, edge-case handling) are minor and partly covered by the output schema and annotations.

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 100%, so _files and _subject are already fully documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'the subject sequence' loosely echoes the _subject parameter but adds no format, ordering, or multi-record (record_index) guidance beyond what the schema supplies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Reverse-complement the subject sequence') and clarifies the output shape: a NEW record rather than an in-place edit. It does not name sibling tools like translate_sequence or mask_sequence, so an agent must infer the boundary from context, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied via the downstream-node list (map, digest, gel, ORF), which tells the agent this is a preparatory step for those analyses. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no named alternative (e.g. translate_sequence, mask_sequence), and no prerequisites or ordering constraints.

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