textbook_view

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

With annotations only declaring mutation semantics (readOnlyHint=false, idempotent=true, non-destructive), the description carries useful extra weight: it explains that interior detail is hidden and that cartoon, surface, and ligand representations are all restyled. It does not say whether existing colors/representations are overwritten or how to revert, which matters for a state-mutating view preset.

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?

Front-loaded with the tool's purpose in the first sentence, followed by the visual outcome. Slightly padded by the quoted marketing label and the redundant restatement of 'bold, 2D illustrative style', but no sentence is truly wasted.

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?

Complexity is low (one parameter, output schema present), and the description covers what the view does and what the rendered result looks like. Gaps are the scope of effect (named object vs. entire scene) and reversibility, which an agent would want before applying a global styling preset.

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 object-name parameter, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no meaning about obj_name — e.g., whether the style applies only to that object or globally — 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 action (configure PyMOL into a cel-shaded 'Textbook Illustration' look) and describes the resulting visual style in concrete terms — white cartoon/surface, heavy black contours, outlined ligand sticks. That detail clearly separates it from stylistic siblings such as pointillist_view, cinematic_view, cartoon, or util_rainbow.

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?

Gives a clear use context ('ideal for presentations or textbook-style diagrams'), which is more than most siblings offer. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when a different view preset would be preferable, and says nothing about prerequisites for applying it.

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