mutation_view

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates scene state safely and repeatably. The description adds substantial value beyond that by spelling out exactly what gets rendered (magenta sticks plus labels for mutants, grey thin sticks within 4 Å, grey cartoon backbone, yellow sticks for ligands), though it never says whether existing representations are cleared or how to revert.

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-loaded with the purpose, then rendering details, then a clearly labeled format paragraph — easy to scan. Minor waste in repeating the same example mutation string twice ('A123G,V45L,T200S' earlier and 'A123G' again for the format rule).

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 description covers both parameters and the visual result. What remains unstated is the interaction with pre-existing scene state (whether prior selections/representations are reset) and any requirement that the object already be loaded.

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 the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real grammar the schema lacks: the <wildtype_aa><resi><mutant_aa> template with a worked Ala→Gly example and the optional chain prefix form 'A:A123G'. That is meaningfully more than the schema's bare example string.

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 and resource ('Highlights mutated residues on the protein structure') and immediately names the distinguishing input (comma-separated mutation list). Among the many *_view siblings (ligand_view, bfactor_view, conservation_view), this one is unambiguously the mutation-annotation view.

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?

Usage is implied by the mutation-list input rather than stated: there is no explicit 'use this when...' and no mention of alternatives such as conservation_view or bfactor_view, nor any prerequisite that obj_name must reference an already-loaded object. An agent can infer the case from context but is given no routing guidance.

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