restore_bfactors

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new mechanism context: the originals are stashed before a view overwrites them and this restores them in one pass, which explains why the tool is safe to repeat. It does not state that the current view-derived values are discarded or what happens when no stash exists, leaving a small behavioural gap.

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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence supplies only the causal context needed to understand why the tool exists. Two sentences with no redundant or filler wording.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the operational story (why B-factors are stashed, which views cause it) that an agent needs to call this correctly. The only missing piece is failure behaviour when no stashed originals are available for the named object.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents obj_name as the PyMOL object whose originals are restored. The description adds no syntax, naming convention or format detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb (restore/put back) and a specific resource (the original B-factor column), and names the exact sibling views whose operation it undoes. An agent can distinguish it from bfactor_view or occupancy_view without opening any 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?

Explicitly names the triggering tools (occupancy_view, ensemble_spread_view, qscore_view) and explains that those views push values into the B-factor column, which tells the agent precisely when this tool is needed. It stops short of stating exclusions, e.g. what happens if no stashed originals exist or whether it should be run after any other tool that alters B-factors.

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