add_plot

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two behaviors beyond the schema: the spline-smoothing artifact risk and the default-parabola fallback when functions is omitted. However, nothing is said about what happens with scene_id/project_id (which project or scene gets the axes, whether a new scene is created), idempotency, or any side effects of this 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the highest-risk gotcha. The inline dict example is dense but earns its space. Slightly under-explained rather than over-long.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and no schema descriptions, the description should orient the agent on placement (scene_id/project_id) and bounds (x_range/y_range). It covers functions' internal semantics well and return values are handled by the output schema, but the majority of the call surface remains unexplained.

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% across 9 parameters. The description thoroughly explains only `functions` (shape, keys, defaults, smoothing flag), leaving x, y, width, height, x_range, y_range, scene_id, and project_id completely undocumented in both schema and prose. Partial compensation for one out of nine parameters is not enough.

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 + resource ('Add axes with functions') and immediately clarifies what a 'function' object looks like. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like add_equation, add_area, or add_step, so an agent must infer that this tool creates a coordinate plane rather than a single curve on an existing one.

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 concrete when-to guidance at the parameter level: smooth=false plus small dx for discontinuous/piecewise functions, functions=[] for bare axes, omit for a default parabola. It lacks any routing guidance against the sibling add_* tools, so the when-to-use-this-vs-alternative dimension is only half covered.

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