chemdraw_build_ownership

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral constraints: every fragment must be assigned exactly once, existing curves require curve_id plus explicit source/target {kind,id}, and the operation does not change manual dragging behavior. This is substantial non-obvious context.

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 core purpose, followed by the most important structural and behavioral details. No filler or repetition of schema fields.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, required ownership invariants, curve constraints, and a return hint. The only notable gap is that 'source-token-bound ownership' is left undefined, which may leave the exact return contract slightly ambiguous.

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 well by explaining the owners structure and curve requirements. It does not elaborate on document_id, but that parameter is self-evident from its name and integer type; the main semantic gaps are filled.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Snapshot a native document and build explicit sidecar ownership') and immediately states the output shape: owner objects with key, fragment_ids, and caption_ids. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like chemdraw_move_owned or chemdraw_build_scope_job, which target different operations.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need to produce a sidecar ownership snapshot of a native document. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over alternatives or what conditions rule it out, leaving sibling selection partly to inference.

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