chemdraw_clean

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, indicating this tool modifies data. The description adds that it 'changes depiction and can alter orientation', which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't elaborate on the extent of changes, reversibility, or any side effects beyond orientation. It adds some value but not deeply.

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 succinct, with two short sentences. The key action is front-loaded, and the caution about depiction and orientation is stated briefly. No wasted words, though the 'after a recovery export' clause adds context without verbosity.

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?

Given the tool's mutating nature, lack of output schema, and sparse schema coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the outcome will be (e.g., no confirmation, no mention of return values), nor does it detail the prerequisites or side effects. For a destructive operation with only 2 parameters, an agent might need to know more to call it correctly, such as whether document_id must be a working document, or the effect on the original file.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. It mentions 'specified molecule or whole document', which partially explains 'molecule_index' and 'document_id', but it doesn't explain the exact meaning of each parameter, the range of molecule_index, or the effect of null. The description is too high-level to guide correct parameter use.

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 the action ('Run native Clean Up Structure'), the target ('specified molecule or whole document'), and the context ('after a recovery export'). While it doesn't explicitly name alternative sibling tools, the verb 'clean' is distinctive enough among the siblings, and the mention of 'recovery export' gives a specific use case.

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 'after a recovery export' gives a temporal context, implying it should be used following a recovery export operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or point to any alternative tools for similar tasks, such as chemdraw_apply_style or chemdraw_polish_document. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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