Build CHOP chain

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

The description reveals key behavioral traits not in annotations: fail-forward warnings, partial chain returns, and the wiring pattern. It adds useful context beyond the readOnly/destructive hints. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage/wiring, and failure behavior plus a tip. Front-loaded and free of fluff.

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?

The schema richly covers inputs, but with no output schema the description only vaguely says 'returns useful info' without specifying the return format. For a side-effecting builder, this is a gap, though fail-forward behavior is helpfully disclosed.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description repeats what the schema already documents (ops list structure, wiring, parent default). It adds no new param-level semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool builds an ordered CHOP processing chain declaratively, identifying the resource (CHOP chain) and distinguishing it from sibling tools like build_pop_chain. The verb 'builder' plus specific 'CHOP' resource makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains the core usage pattern (pass an ops list, wiring output 0 to input 0, parent default) and offers a practical tip about ending with nullCHOP for bind_to_channel readiness. It does not explicitly list alternative tools or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear.

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