origin_add_plot_to_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits such as prerequisites (graph layer must exist) or side effects (modifies existing layer). It only describes the core function, lacking transparency about error handling or what happens if the layer is 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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action. It could benefit from a bit more detail without being verbose, but it is not overly 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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, many sibling tools, no annotations, but an output schema), the description is insufficient. It omits prerequisites, error cases, and the fact that the output schema might provide additional context. The description does not cover key aspects needed for correct invocation.

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 compensate. However, it provides no details about the 9 parameters (e.g., meaning of plot_type, which columns are required, how to specify worksheet). The phrase 'worksheet X/Y plot' only hints at x_col and y_col, ignoring other parameters like graph_name, layer_index, and error columns.

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 (add), the resource (worksheet X/Y plot), and the target (existing graph layer). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that create new graphs or use different plot types.

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?

The description implicitly suggests usage when you want to add a plot to an existing graph layer, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like origin_plot_line or origin_plot_scatter, which may create new graphs. No guidance on when not to use this tool.

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