origin_execute_figure_spec

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions supported features and that unsupported ones are reported in the plan, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., project modification), blocking behavior, or error handling. For a complex tool, this is insufficient.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and avoids redundancy. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 of the input schema (nested objects, many options), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the tool's lifecycle, return values (though output schema exists), or how it integrates with other tools like origin_plan_figure_spec. More guidance would significantly improve usability.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes both parameters adequately (spec as 'Declarative FigureSpec...', dry_run as validation without changes). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it executes a declarative FigureSpec, distinguishing it from planning tools like origin_plan_figure_spec. The verb 'execute' combined with the resource 'FigureSpec' is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies use cases for generating figures from specs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like origin_plan_figure_spec or origin_export_graph. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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