chemdraw_apply_route

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

Adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the tool creates a NEW copy, preserves the source, saves a selection audit, and rejects stale/modified proposals. These are important side effects and constraints that the minimal annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false) do not reveal.

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 dense, purposeful sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by constraints and side effects, and finishes with a useful disambiguation from chemical mechanisms.

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?

Provides enough operational context: required freshness, explicit selection, new-copy behavior, source preservation, and audit saving. It does not describe return values, which is notable given no output schema, but the invocation constraints are sufficiently complete for a competent 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It conceptually maps candidate_id to the selected route, document_id to the source document, output_dir to the new copy, and report to the audit. However, it does not explain the report shape, pixels, or formatting expectations, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

States a specific action ('Validate and render') on a precise resource ('one explicitly selected suggested route in a NEW native copy'). The final sentence disambiguates from chemical-mechanism tools by clarifying it selects a geometric path. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like chemdraw_suggest_routes.

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?

Clearly implies when to use it: after a route is explicitly suggested, and only with a fresh unmodified snapshot. It also flags when the tool will reject input via 'Rejects stale snapshots or modified proposals'. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state conditions for when another tool should be used instead.

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