ms_gui_cleave_surface_vacuum_current

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions using SurfaceBuilder + CrystalBuilder but fails to disclose whether the operation modifies the current crystal, creates a new document, or requires specific permissions. The agent is left unaware of side effects.

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 description is two sentences with no redundant information. The key action is front-loaded, and the usage condition is stated directly. Every sentence adds value.

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 14 parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of common parameters, the description is insufficient. It does not cover what the tool returns or how parameters like h,k,l affect the result. The tool's complexity demands more context.

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 only 14% (2 out of 14 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no parameter information, failing to compensate for the low coverage. Most parameters like h,k,l, capType, cleaveRule, etc., remain unexplained.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Cleave a surface from the current GUI crystal and build a vacuum slab' using specific builders. It also distinguishes usage from siblings by specifying when to use it, referencing the manual surface workflow.

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 description provides explicit guidance: 'Use only when the user explicitly asks...' This sets a clear condition. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, limiting differentiation from sibling tools like ms_gui_add_vacuum_current.

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