origin_plot_matrix_3d_surface

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether the matrix is modified, if a new graph is created, or if the tool is read-only). Behavioral traits like output handling, resource requirements, or potential errors are 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 sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it could include parameter hints or more context without sacrificing 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters and no annotations, the description lacks sufficient detail for correct invocation. It does not explain the required data_range format, optional parameter effects, or output behavior. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no information about parameters (data_range, graph_name, title, export_path). An agent cannot infer required format of data_range or effects of optional parameters from the description alone.

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 ('Create'), the output ('3D surface plot'), and the data source ('from an existing Origin matrix range'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like origin_plot_3d_surface, which works on worksheet data, and other matrix plots like scatter or contour.

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 usage for matrix data by specifying 'matrix range', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., plotting from worksheet or using other matrix plot types). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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