compare_candidates

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: asynchronous job creation with a poll requirement, and the important caveat that strength/finish results remain unverified. It does not describe failure modes or job lifetime, so not 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?

Front-loads the core comparison purpose, then layers workflow, constraints, and caveats in compact sentences. Dense but each clause carries information; minor run-on feel in the constraint/caveat 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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the return contract (persistent job, poll get_job, time/material estimates and tradeoffs) plus the reliability caveat. Missing constraints-object detail and any error/expiry behavior keeps it below 5.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully documents the candidate item shape ({name, changes} or {name, revision}) and the numeric constraint keys (max_time_seconds, max_filament_g), but leaves project_id, revision, and the constraints object's overall semantics unexplained.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Compare unchanged baseline with 1..7 alternatives') and even pins the cardinality of the candidates argument. It names related siblings (edit_regions, get_job) rather than the tool it competes with (e.g. analyze_geometry), so differentiation is present but not a direct 'use X instead of Y' contrast.

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 real workflow guidance: it returns immediately and the caller must poll get_job, and spatial candidates require revisions produced by edit_regions. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or a direct alternative to pick between, which keeps it short of a 5.

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