set_symmetry

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it merely states the action without revealing side effects, such as overwriting existing symmetry settings, requiring a molecular object, or triggering recalculation. It does not disclose any constraints or expected outcomes beyond the immediate assignment.

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 a single concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, though it is perhaps too terse given the tool's complexity. Still, it is efficiently written and easy to parse.

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 7 required parameters and no annotations, the description is inadequate for correct invocation. It does not explain what constitutes a valid 'object', how the selection should be formatted, or any context about unit cell conventions. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of usage context.

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%, with each parameter (a, b, c, alpha, beta, gamma, selection) already described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies without further credit.

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 clearly states the tool sets symmetry parameters for an object. It uses a specific verb ('sets') and resource ('symmetry parameters'), which is distinct from generic sibling tools like 'set'. However, it does not enumerate the specific parameters (a, b, c, angles), leaving some ambiguity that the schema partially resolves.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a selected object or crystal system. Sibling tools like 'set' or 'alter' exist, but no distinctions or exclusions are stated.

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