run_plate_solve

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

With no annotations, the description carries behavioral disclosure and does so well: it specifies offline Gaia DR3/SP, tolerance of position within a fraction of the field, scale seed can be off about 2x, and DATE-OBS/DATE fallback to today. It does not describe success/failure output or side effects in more detail, but the 'adds astrometric solution' statement conveys the key mutation.

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?

Four dense sentences, purpose first, then downstream need, then parameter requirements, then tolerances and time fallback. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

Description covers purpose, prerequisites, tolerance, and time-source fallback, and the schema covers parameter details. It is slightly incomplete about observation_jd (the description's 'else today' omits that a passed Julian date can override) and doesn't explain return/error behavior, but those are minor given the schema richness.

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 already documents all 7 parameters, and description adds relationships: ra_deg/dec_deg are a pair, pixel_scale is alternative to focal_length_mm + pixel_size_um, and image keywords can substitute. This adds real meaning beyond the schema.

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 first sentence names a precise operation, 'plate solve an open image with ImageSolver against the local Gaia DR3/SP database (offline)', and the second ties it to downstream siblings (run_spfc, run_mgc, run_spcc), making it easy to distinguish from copy_astrometric_solution and other 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?

States that the astrometric solution is a prerequisite for run_spfc/run_mgc/run_spcc and gives exact conditions for supplying position/scale versus relying on image keywords. It lacks an explicit 'use when not' clause, 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.