restore_bfactors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool mutates the object's B-factor column and explains the mechanism: originals are stashed first and then restored in one pass. It stops short of detailing edge cases like what happens if no stash exists, but the disclosure of the mutation and stash mechanism is strong.

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 description is two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded in the first. The second sentence earns its place by naming the three relevant sibling tools and explaining the stash mechanism, with no wasted words.

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?

For a single-parameter utility that has an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, the triggering conditions, and the mechanism. It could mention the no-stash edge case, but given the straightforward nature of the tool and strong context, it is reasonably complete.

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% for the single obj_name parameter, so the baseline is 3. The schema's description already specifies 'PyMOL object whose original B-factors should be put back.' The tool description adds no additional parameter-level details, but given the full schema coverage, this is acceptable.

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 description opens with 'Restore the B-factors a Wiggles view overwrote,' which clearly identifies the action (restore), the resource (B-factors), and the context (overwritten by a view). It then names the three specific sibling tools (occupancy_view, ensemble_spread_view, qscore_view) that cause the overwrite, making it unmistakable.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: after any of the three named views have pushed their values into the B-factor column. It also implies the alternative (use the views to visualize, use this to restore the original data), so there is no ambiguity about the use case.

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