ms_forcite_calculation_checked

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it fails to mention key behaviors such as the 'checked' mechanism (likely hash verification), default dry_run behavior, confirmation token requirement, or side effects of running a calculation. The term 'preserve evidence bundle' is vague and does not explain what this entails operationally.

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 redundancy. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices valuable details, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness flaw. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 complexity (10 parameters, 7 required, no annotations, output schema present), the description is severely incomplete. It does not inform the agent about the 'checked' verification, dry-run flow, confirmation tokens, or how to handle idempotency and output slots. The presence of an output schema does not excuse the missing invocation and behavioral 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only hints at 'hash-bound' (input_sha256) and 'profile' (profile_id). It does not explain the purpose of 10 parameters including idempotency_key, project_directory, calculation_parameters, output_slot, dry_run, timeout_seconds, and confirmation_token. This is insufficient for an agent to construct a valid invocation.

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 core action ('Run one hash-bound Forcite profile') and the preservation of evidence bundle, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like the Castep variants. It uses a specific verb and resource, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 this is the tool for running hash-bound Forcite calculations, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., other simulation engines). No exclusions or conditional usage guidance is provided.

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