mnova_prepare_structure_1d

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key steps (processing, extracting metadata, optional Verify, saving a .mnova) but does not mention side effects, file overwrites, required external dependencies, or failure modes. Moderate transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds needed detail without fluff. It is concise and well-structured.

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 gives a good high-level overview and mentions the output's purpose (assignment-plan JSON), but lacks parameter-level details (especially processing_template_path) and does not describe the return format beyond 'evidence package'. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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. It implies input_path and structure_path ('Open 1D NMR plus CDX/CDXML') and run_verification ('optionally runs Mnova Verify'), and output_dir implied by 'saves a prepared .mnova document', but it completely omits processing_template_path. Significant gap for a key parameter.

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 it opens 1D NMR plus a structure file, processes the spectrum, extracts atom metadata and peak IDs, optionally runs Verify, and saves a prepared .mnova document. This specific verb+resource set distinguishes it from siblings like mnova_process_1d (likely processing-only) and mnova_apply_assignments_1d (applying assignments).

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 gives clear context: it is used to create an 'evidence package' for a separate assignment-plan JSON, indicating when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for simple processing use mnova_process_1d').

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