chemdraw_build_scope_job

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing meaningful behaviors: source drawings are left unchanged, no experimental outcomes are inferred, only a single physical page is supported, and overflow fails without shrinking molecules. This is valuable behavioral context not present in the schema or 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?

Three dense sentences with no wasted words. The main action and deliverables are front-loaded, and each subsequent clause adds a distinct constraint or behavior that earns its place.

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 is rich in high-level purpose and constraints, which is helpful given the weak schema and absent output schema. However, it leaves the structure of the `job` object ambiguous and does not explain `output_dir` or what the tool returns, so an agent cannot fully construct the invocation from the description alone.

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 carry parameter meaning. It lists job content components ('selected candidates, conserved scaffold, true category rows, headings'), but does not map them to the `job` object's keys, and the required `output_dir` parameter is never explained. The description provides partial semantics only partially compensates for the schema's silence.

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 names a specific verb ('Build'), resource ('scope job'), and key scope qualifier ('explicitly approved', 'in NEW native documents'), followed by concrete deliverables. This clearly distinguishes it from planning, decorating, or editing tools even without naming siblings.

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 phrase 'explicitly approved' implies this should be used after a planning/approval stage, and 'NEW native documents' implies creation rather than mutation of existing files. However, it never explicitly names alternatives such as chemdraw_plan_scope_job or states when not to use this tool.

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