Build POP chain

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false (not read-only) and destructive=false (non-destructive). The description adds important behavioral context: 'POPs are Experimental — result carries `unverified` marker', 'unknown par names become warnings (fail-forward)', and per-kind safe defaults. This complements the annotations well.

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 a dense paragraph that front-loads key info (purpose), then explains usage, defaults, experimental note, and a tip. It is concise with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier scanning.

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 complexity (3 parameters with a nested array), the description covers purpose, wiring logic, defaults, experimental nature, and a tip. No output schema exists, so return values are not expected. It is fairly complete for a builder tool, though it could mention that it creates a network of POP operators.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning: for `chain`, it explains wiring logic and defaults; for `params`, it notes that string values resolving to op paths add functionality; for `parent`, it references sibling tool semantics. This adds moderate semantic 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 'Declarative Layer-2 builder for an ordered POP chain', specifying the verb (build), resource (POP chain), and distinguishing it from siblings like build_chop_chain and build_sop_geometry. The term 'POP (Point OPerator)' is domain-specific but precise.

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 detailed usage guidance: how to pass a `chain` list, wiring rules, default behavior for `parent`, per-kind defaults, and a tip to end with `null_pop`. It does not explicitly exclude any use cases or compare with alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies appropriate usage.

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