chemdraw_plan_scope_job

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: it runs offline, yields null, and never implicitly accepts candidates. This goes beyond the schema and annotations and clarifies the planning contract clearly.

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 three dense sentences with no redundancy and front-loads the main purpose. The wording is slightly telegraphic and the phrase 'All yields null' is awkward, but every sentence contributes substantive information.

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?

It provides the essential inputs and a clear behavioral contract despite the bare nested job schema and missing output schema. However, the exact shape of handle_atom_map and the categories structure is not fully specified, so an agent may need to infer details about the nested argument.

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 provides only an opaque job object with 0% description coverage, but the description names required internal fields: mapped parent_smiles, handle_atom_map, and ordered groups {label,categories}. It also distinguishes build-time selected_candidate_ids/accept_all from planning semantics, which meaningfully compensates for the empty schema even though exact types and nested structures remain underspecified.

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 states a clear function: offline planning of a standard aromatic scope with explicit candidate selection and category grouping. It is distinguishable from build_scope_job and propose_scope by emphasizing planning and offline mode, though it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an active verb.

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 context that this is the offline planning stage, expects mapped parent_smiles, handle_atom_map, and ordered groups, and contrasts planning with building by noting that building requires selected_candidate_ids or accept_all=true while planning never implicitly accepts. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or give 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.