ms_geology_import_crystal_parent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'verify' but does not explain side effects (e.g., file writes), hash mismatch behavior, idempotency implications, or the need for confirmation tokens. Critical behavioral traits are left undisclosed.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the primary action and verification step, making it easy to parse, though it omits necessary detail.

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 10 parameters, 7 required, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is far too sparse. It fails to mention prerequisites, when to use the tool, failure handling, or the importance of fields like 'confirmation_token' and 'dry_run'. The output schema exists but the description should still provide usage 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. While it hints that 'input_crystal_structure' is a CIF/XSD and 'expected_elements' relates to the element inventory, it leaves parameters like 'output_slot', 'max_atoms', 'idempotency_key', and 'confirmation_token' completely unexplained.

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 tool imports a hash-bound CIF/XSD crystal parent and verifies its periodic element inventory. It uses a specific verb ('import') and resource ('crystal parent'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that build or modify structures.

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, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description simply states what the tool does without contextualizing its use.

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