origin_format_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only lists settable properties without describing effects (e.g., whether rescale auto-adjusts axes, if changes are reversible, if the graph must already exist). This is insufficient for a formatting tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that is concise. However, it is too brief given the number of parameters and lack of schema descriptions, sacrificing clarity for brevity.

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?

With 6 optional parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions in either schema or description, the tool definition is incomplete. The output schema exists but is not explained, and the description fails to provide sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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. It vaguely mentions 'graph long name' and 'axis labels', but does not clarify the distinction between graph_name and title parameters, nor explain the rescale boolean. The 6 parameters are poorly covered.

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 uses a specific verb 'Set' and lists the resources: graph long name, axis labels, legend visibility, and rescale. However, 'long name' is ambiguous (could be graph_name or title), and it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like origin_set_axis or origin_set_plot_style. The purpose is clear but not fully distinct.

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 the numerous sibling tools that also modify graph properties (e.g., origin_set_axis, origin_set_plot_style). There are no usage constraints, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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