origin_add_calculated_column

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action but does not mention side effects like whether columns are overwritten, insertion position, recalculations, or permissions required. Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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 a single sentence that is clear and to the point. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (4 parameters, 2 required) and presence of an output schema, the description lacks important context: how book_name and sheet_name affect target worksheet, expected formula format, and column properties. A mutation tool like this should provide more operational detail.

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 must add meaning. It mentions 'worksheet column' and 'LabTalk column formula', relating to column_name and formula, but does not explain book_name and sheet_name or provide syntax/format for formula. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal value beyond that.

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 clearly states the action: adding a worksheet column and filling it with a LabTalk formula. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes from siblings like origin_add_reference_line which adds a reference line rather than a column.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as origin_clear_worksheet or origin_write_worksheet. There are no prerequisites, examples, or mentions of when not to use it.

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