deformation_view

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the refusal condition, the meaning and limits of the arrows, and that missing confidence data yields falsely uniform arrows which the report flags. It does not mention that the operation mutates the model (overwriting B-factors unless preserved), a side effect an agent would want to know given readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence and then layers the caveats in short paragraphs. The blind-challenge citation is somewhat discursive but directly motivates the arrow semantics, so it earns its place; the whole is slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, the description supplies the remaining conceptual load: what the arrows mean, when the tool refuses, and how confidence is conveyed. The only notable omission is that the call rewrites B-factors in the model, a mutation an agent should anticipate.

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 all nine parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds interpretive value for uncertainty_path (colours by disagreement, restores confidence meaning) and qualifies arrow_scale exaggeration, but says nothing about start_state/end_state defaults or max_arrows truncation beyond the schema text.

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?

States a specific verb pair (colour and arrow) and resource scope (per-residue displacement between two states), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings such as putty_view or ensemble_spread_view. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: supply uncertainty_path when the method estimates deformation on independent half-sets, and the tool refuses when the two states differ in atom count. It does not, however, route the agent between this tool and near neighbours like putty_view or ensemble_spread_view, so selection guidance is incomplete.

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