util_cbap

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

The annotations already indicate this is an idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only operation, and the description adds that the visual effect is specifically purple carbons. It does not explain how the selection parameter affects scope or whether only carbon atoms are changed while others remain untouched.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is phrased as a fragment and the parenthetical repeats the same idea as the title. It is concise, yet the duplication and awkward wording reduce clarity.

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 simple one-parameter visualization utility with a fully described schema and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves the selection behavior and interaction with current scene state to the schema rather than explaining them.

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 single selection parameter is fully documented in the input schema, including its default of 'all', so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no further detail about selection syntax or scope.

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 states a concrete visual operation: coloring carbon atoms purple. The target and color distinguish it from sibling utility color tools such as util_cbam or util_cbay, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the other util_cb* coloring tools or the generic color command. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and color variant.

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