unbond

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries full responsibility. It simply states 'Removes a bond' without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether this modifies the molecular structure permanently, if it affects display, or behavior when the bond does not exist). This lack of behavioral context makes it inadequate for a mutation-like operation.

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 that is front-loaded and contains zero waste. It effectively communicates the essential action without unnecessary 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?

With full schema coverage, an output schema, and a simple 2-parameter operation, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits any usage context or edge-case behavior, leaving the agent to infer when and how to apply the tool. It is adequate but not enriched.

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 both parameters clearly described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but since the schema fully explains 'atom1' and 'atom2', the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Removes') and names the resource ('a bond between two atoms'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tool 'bond' which presumably creates bonds. This is direct and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for removing bonds but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., 'bond' for adding). No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, so it meets the 'implied usage' criterion but lacks explicit guidance.

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