putty_view

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false but destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates display state safely; the description adds substantial context beyond that by disclosing exactly what the scene becomes: tube radius scaled to B-factor, a 70%-transparent surface also B-factor colored, ligands as yellow-carbon sticks, and a black background. What it does not disclose is whether existing representations/settings are replaced or how it behaves on objects lacking B-factors.

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?

Five short lines, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the visual encoding legend, then supporting details. Every line adds usable information and there is no filler.

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?

With a single fully documented parameter and an output schema handling return values, the description covers nearly everything an agent needs: what the rendering means and what the scene will look like afterward. The remaining gap is preconditions and side effects on existing representations, which matter given readOnlyHint=false.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully (100% coverage) with an example format. The description adds no additional meaning about obj_name, so the schema alone carries parameter semantics, giving the baseline 3.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and rendering concept: 'Visualizes protein flexibility using a putty (tube-width) representation,' which is meaningfully distinct from a plain B-factor coloring tool. It does not explicitly name a sibling (e.g., bfactor_view) as the alternative, so differentiation is implicit through the representation name rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (such as requiring B-factors to be present on the object), and no statement about when a different view tool would be preferable. Usage is only inferable from the purpose sentence.

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