run_spfc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it discloses that the tool writes metadata, has prerequisites, uses a default Ideal QE curve, and falls back to flat passbands when no measured filter curve is given. It does not mention overwrite/idempotency or possible failure modes, which keeps it slightly below a 5.

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 dense sentences front-load the purpose before prerequisites and options. Every clause carries information, and the MONO/COLOR split makes a 9-parameter tool navigable without redundancy.

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 9-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, this is unusually complete: it covers prerequisites, dependencies, parameter selection rules, and defaults. The only gap is the absence of any statement about return values, overwriting existing metadata, or failure behavior.

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%, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the MONO vs COLOR parameter family, the rule to omit filter for color images, and the flat-passband default when filter_name is absent. This is meaningful semantic guidance that cannot be fully inferred from the property descriptions alone.

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?

States an action verb 'Run' with the expanded resource SpectrophotometricFluxCalibration and the concrete effect 'writes the flux metadata that run_mgc requires.' This distinguishes it from sibling calibration tools by naming its downstream consumer, so an agent can tell what it does and why.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites ('must be plate-solved and linear'), required inputs (QE curve, filter curve), and a branching rule for mono vs color images. It also routes the agent to find_filters for curve names and positions this as the step before run_mgc, providing clear when-to-use context.

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