cartoon

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

The annotations already state the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the low-risk mutation is covered structurally. The description adds almost nothing beyond them: it does not say whether the change is reversible, whether it affects only the cartoon representation or other display state, or how the default 'all' selection behaves — the only extra signal is that the change is scoped to a selection.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is simple in scope. Still, for a display-mutating command with many sibling representation tools, the description leaves the agent without the routing and prerequisite context needed to invoke it confidently.

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 100%; the `item_type` enum values and the `selection` PyMOL syntax are fully documented in the schema itself. The description's phrase 'the specified selection' merely restates the parameter and contributes no format or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Sets the cartoon type' names the exact property being changed, and 'for the specified selection' scopes it. It does not, however, distinguish itself from neighbouring representation tools such as `as`, `show`, or `draw`, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent is not told whether to prefer `cartoon` over `as`/`show` when changing representation, nor what prerequisites (a loaded object, a visible cartoon) are required.

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