bond

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'creates a bond' and does not mention atomicity, whether existing bonds are replaced, required atom selection behavior (exactly one atom each), or any side effects on the molecular structure. The schema describes selections, but the description does not state these are required or how they are validated.

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 one short sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded with the key information. However, it is so brief that it under-delivers on context, but for pure conciseness it earns a high score.

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?

The tool is a structural mutation operation with no annotations and only a one-line description. While an output schema exists and parameters are documented, the description fails to provide essential behavioral context such as how the bond creation affects the structure, prerequisites, or relationship to sibling tools. For a simple tool, this is a minimal but incomplete description.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (atom1, atom2, order) having its own description in the input schema. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning, so it does not go above the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 'Creates a bond between two atoms' clearly states the action (creates) and the resource (a bond), and the two-atom target is explicit. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings such as 'unbond' or 'distance', the primary purpose 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. For example, there is no mention that 'unbond' is the inverse operation, or that bonds should be created before using distance or angle tools. The description simply states what it does with no contextual usage advice.

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