util_cbam

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the coloring action. It does not mention whether this is a non-destructive view change, whether it affects only the selection or all objects, or whether it overrides existing colors. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies the visual state.

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 very brief and front-loaded, but the parenthetical '(Color By Atom, Magenta)' repeats the same information in the first half, which is redundant. It still earns its place by being short and readable, but the redundancy slightly reduces the score.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain the effect on the scene, whether the selection is atom-based or object-based, or how this compares to other coloring utilities. For a tool with many siblings, more context could help selection.

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?

The schema description covers the only parameter (selection) with 'What to recolour. Defaults to everything.' at 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Colors by atom') and the specific detail ('magenta carbons'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like util_cbc (likely cyan) or util_cbag (green). It is a specific verb+resource statement that leaves no doubt about the tool's purpose.

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 coloring atoms magenta, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or other color-by-atom variants, so the guidance is only implicit from the name and description.

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