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

The description mentions the Dunbrack rotamer library but does not disclose if the mutation modifies the structure in-place, if a structure must be open, or what the output represents. Since no annotations exist, more detail would help.

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 concise, front-loads the core action, includes useful aliases and an example, with no redundant sentences.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers usage but omits prerequisites (e.g., structure must be loaded) and side effects. It is mostly complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains spec format ('/A:48 or A:48') and new_aa ('1-letter and 3-letter codes'), which adds significant meaning beyond 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 'Mutate (swap) a residue to a different amino acid using the Dunbrack rotamer library,' which is a specific verb and resource. Aliases and an example clarify the action. Sibling tools are diverse, so no confusion.

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 input formats for spec and new_aa, including examples. It does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, but the context of mutation is clear enough.

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