chemdraw_analyze_document

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly stating 'Source is not edited,' which is important given readOnlyHint is false. It also discloses that support is limited to 'supported drawings' and 'supported single molecules,' and reveals the recovery-snapshot side effect. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured annotations.

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 only three sentences and every sentence contributes: the first states the core output, the second explains how to use the returned token, and the third adds the analogue-edit context and the non-destructive guarantee. It is dense with domain jargon but contains no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description reasonably enumerates the returned data: molecule IDs, bounds, text, arrows, and a top-level source_token. It also provides downstream usage context. However, it never explains what 'supported drawings' means, how object IDs are obtained, or the structure of the recovery snapshot, leaving notable gaps for an agent.

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?

The schema has one required parameter, document_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention document_id at all, nor does it explain how the document is identified or any constraints on it. Because coverage is low and the description fails to compensate, this dimension is weak.

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 a specific action: 'Export a recovery snapshot and return molecule IDs, bounds, text, arrows and a top-level source_token for supported drawings.' This is more specific than the tool name and identifies concrete outputs. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like chemdraw_inspect_document or chemdraw_export, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives some downstream usage guidance: 'Use that token and explicit object IDs for scope grids' and mentions using the same token for analogue edits. However, it never says when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as inspect_document or export, and it does not state exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions.

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