mnova_apply_assignments_1d

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses multiple behaviors: writing labels onto structure and peaks, optional verification, saving a new .mnova file, and rejecting low-confidence assignments unless allowed. This gives a strong sense of side effects and constraints.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by detailed behaviors and requirements. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary filler.

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?

The description covers the full operation, prerequisites, parameter implications, and output behavior. It could more explicitly tie into the workflow of sibling tools (e.g., that the document must come from mnova_prepare_structure_1d), but it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 compensates by associating prepared_mnova_path, assignment_plan_path, run_verification, and allow_low_confidence with their roles. It implies output_dir via 'saves a new assigned .mnova file', though it does not explicitly name it.

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 validates and writes an assignment plan into a prepared Mnova document, with specific actions like linking atoms to multiplet UUIDs and writing labels. This distinguishes it from siblings like mnova_prepare_structure_1d and mnova_status.

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 prerequisites: a prepared Mnova document and an assignment plan, and provides requirements like lowercase labels and low-confidence handling. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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