rebuild

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations — it does not say that underlying structure data is untouched, whether it is expensive on large scenes, or what the output reports. The 'all displayed geometry' phrasing also mildly undercuts the annotation-implied notion that the call can act on a subset.

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 that is front-loaded with the action, with no filler. It is slightly under-specified rather than verbose, but structurally efficient.

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?

It is a simple one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, so little is strictly required. Still, the description should at minimum mention the refresh-after-edit use case and the selectable scope, both of which the agent currently has to infer.

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%, so the schema already explains that 'selection' controls what is regenerated and why it is needed after coordinate or B-factor edits. The description adds no parameter meaning and, if anything, implies the operation always covers everything, which does not match a selectable target.

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 ('Regenerates ... displayed geometry'), so an agent can tell it rebuilds display geometry rather than data. However, it says 'all displayed geometry' while the schema exposes a 'selection' parameter defaulting to 'all', so the description overstates the scope to everything.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: it never mentions the trigger condition (after altering coordinates or B-factors), nor distinguishes itself from near-siblings such as refresh, show, hide, or alter_state. The only usage cue lives in the parameter schema, not the description.

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