chemdraw_propose_scope

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations: it enumerates the exact generated variant classes, the stable graph IDs/SMILES/labels/rationale/yields output, preservation of parent graph/stereo, and the absence of drawing or reaction-prediction behavior. This goes well beyond the annotation hints and sets accurate expectations.

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 front-loads the core purpose, then moves through input constraint, output contents, limitations, and the next action. Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information with no fluff or repetition; the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 tool with no output schema and only three parameters, the description covers the required input shape, what outputs to expect, what is preserved, what is not performed, and what to do next. An agent has enough information to decide to call it and to interpret its result.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it does for the two required parameters: parent must be an isolated monosubstituted ring with an atom-mapped carbon attached to the handle. It does not explicitly call out the optional 'profile' parameter, but that parameter is constrained to a default constant, so the omission is minor.

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 action and object: 'Propose a standard aromatic substrate scope offline, not experimental results.' It states exactly what the tool produces (deduplicated parent, electronic, halogen, Me, steric variants) and what it does not do (native drawing or reaction prediction), so an agent can distinguish it from related scope/drawing tools.

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 clear input prerequisites ('Parent requires a uniquely atom-mapped benzene carbon attached to the existing reaction handle on an isolated monosubstituted ring') and a downstream instruction ('Review/select candidates, then call draw_structures'). It does not, however, explicitly contrast this tool with sibling propose/decorate/scan scope tools or state when not to use them.

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