generate_star_system_embedding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does contribute two useful facts: the output dimensionality and that the model is a configured/environmental dependency. It does not disclose whether the computed embedding is persisted or returned only, whether an existing embedding is overwritten, or what permissions are required — all material for a compute-and-possibly-write operation.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the salient detail (1024 dimensions), with no filler. It is efficient, though slightly thin for a tool with side effects and a sync flag.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should say what comes back (the vector, a job handle, a stored record) and whether the result is persisted; it says none of this. The `sync` parameter implies asynchronous job behavior, but the description does not explain what an async call yields.

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 100%, with both `id` (star system ID) and `sync` (wait synchronously) documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no further meaning about id validity or the latency/trade-off implications of sync, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: it calculates a 1024-dimensional vector embedding for a star system, and it names the mechanism ('configured embedding model'). That is far more specific than a restated name, though it never contrasts itself with the sibling generate_celestial_body_embedding, so the boundary between the two is left to the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (must the star system already exist, must celestial bodies be populated first?), and no cost or exclusions noted. The agent must infer entirely from the tool name that it should be used for a single star system rather than bulk or body-level embedding.

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