ms_geology_build_supercell

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions 'audited' and 'local API' but does not explain side effects, required permissions, whether the operation is destructive, or what 'audited' entails. For a tool with confirmation_token and idempotency_key parameters, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is severely under-specified for a tool with 12 parameters and 9 required fields. Conciseness is good, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient coverage of essential information.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 12 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and a one-sentence description. The agent lacks essential context about parameter relationships, preconditions, output validity, or failure modes, making the description completely inadequate for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter meanings. It does not mention repeat dimensions, max_atoms, project_directory, or any other parameter. The agent cannot infer parameter semantics from either the schema or the description.

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 ('Build'), the object ('one audited XSD supercell'), and the method ('local MS 2023 BuildSuperCell API'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like ms_geology_build_periodic_slab_cell by specifying the XSD supercell output and the audited nature.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ms_geology_build_periodic_slab_cell or other build/preflight tools. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints about the intended workflow.

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