chemdraw_suggest_routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds meaningful behavioral constraints: it rejects atom-label sources, requires an explicit symbol, returns snapshot-bound candidate recipes and a clearance audit, and explicitly says native arrowhead ink still needs visual review. It does not fully describe failure modes or the exact shape of the candidate recipes, but with readOnlyHint covering safety, this is strong.

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 compact and information-dense. Every sentence contributes: the first sentence defines the tool's exact function, the second and third define input constraints, the third defines non-behaviors, and the last describes the return type. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core behavior.

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 moderate complexity (8 params, nested objects, no output schema) and readOnlyHint annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what inputs are valid, what it does not do, and what it returns. The main omission is parameter semantics for the remaining options, but the defaults and names make them inferable. This is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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% and there are 8 parameters including nested objects. The description explains the meaning of source and target in detail (source types accepted/rejected, target as explicit atom/bond ID), which compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions. However, it does not explain clearance, electrons, line_width, fishhook_side, or max_candidates, leaving those to be inferred from defaults and names.

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 specific verb (suggest) and resource (bounded cubic electron-flow paths) and clearly distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it uses measured obstacles and returns candidate recipes plus clearance audit, not actual route application. It differentiates from chemdraw_apply_route, which likely executes routes, and from chemdraw_plan_scope_job.

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 description gives explicit eligibility criteria: source must be an explicit displayed CircleMinus/LonePair for two electrons, Electron dot for one electron, or donating bond; atom-label sources are rejected; target must be an explicit atom or bond ID. It also states no chemistry inference or automatic route selection, ruling out use cases where the user expects the tool to interpret chemistry.

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