origin_plot_area

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

The description provides no behavioral details beyond 'create an area plot.' It does not disclose whether it creates a new graph or adds to an existing one, what happens with optional parameters, or any side effects. No annotations are present to compensate.

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 concise (one sentence) but overly terse. It lacks structure and does not provide any additional detail to aid understanding. There is no wasted text, but it is not sufficiently informative.

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 (5 parameters, no descriptions, output schema present) and the large set of sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It omits essential context such as prerequisites, output behavior, and differentiation from similar tools.

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%, and the description adds no clarification about parameters. The agent cannot infer what 'path' means (file, worksheet?) or how 'selected_cols', 'graph_name', etc., affect the plot. This is a critical gap.

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 creates an area plot from table data, making the purpose intelligible. However, it does not differentiate from closely related sibling tools like origin_plot_fill_area or origin_plot_stack_area, which could cause confusion.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives. With many similar plot tools, the agent needs information about context (e.g., simple vs stacked vs filled area plots) to select correctly.

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