ms_remote_castep_record_submission

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 says 'Record one Materials Studio Job Control receipt', implying a write operation, but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicates, or any side effects. It gives basic context but lacks depth on behavior.

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, front-loading the purpose and then the usage guideline. Every sentence is concise and to the point, with no verbose or redundant content.

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?

Given the tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and a specific use case but lacks parameter details, return value information, and full behavioral context. An agent would need additional information to use it correctly.

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%, and the description only provides meaning for calculationName (via the usage instruction). Other parameters like jobId, gateway, status, etc., are not explained. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 records a Materials Studio Job Control receipt and specifies the context: for native_castep preparation, call after submitting XSD. It gives a specific verb and resource, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ms_remote_castep_batch_status, though the purpose is distinct.

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 usage guidance: call once per calculationName after submitting XSD. It clearly indicates when to use the tool but does not mention exclusions or alternatives. This is still effective for an agent.

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