origin_apply_image_panel_style

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions applying labels and an optional dark layout but does not explain whether labels overwrite or append, what happens to existing styles, or what the output is. The run_diagnostics parameter is not explained.

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, no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key action and resource. However, it could be more structured by separating label types and layout option.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description fails to explain the tool's full context, such as output format, interaction with existing panel styles, or effects of run_diagnostics. The description is too brief for a tool of this complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates minimally by naming 'labels' and 'dark panel layout,' which map to some parameters (e.g., panel_label, dark_panel). However, 9 parameters exist, and the description does not clarify the role of most (e.g., graph_name, layer_index, font_size).

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 tool applies labels to heatmap/image panels and optionally sets a dark panel layout. It specifies the resource (panel) and action (apply labels, optional dark layout), but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like origin_format_graph or origin_set_plot_style, though the panel focus is evident.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., origin_format_graph for general graph formatting). No prerequisites, limitations, or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.

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