origin_plot_waterfall

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 says 'Create', implying a non-destructive operation, but provides no details about side effects, required permissions, or what happens to existing graphs. For a creation tool, essential behavior like naming conventions or overwrite policy is 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, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous information. It is appropriately brief for a straightforward plot creation tool.

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 5 parameters, zero documentation, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. Even with an output schema present, the agent lacks the information needed to correctly invoke the tool—especially regarding parameter selection and expected results.

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 offers no explanation of any parameter. The five parameters ('path', 'selected_cols', 'graph_name', 'title', 'export_path') are neither named in the description nor given context. The agent cannot infer their meaning without external knowledge.

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 plot type ('3D waterfall/walls plot'), and the data source ('from table data'). It effectively conveys what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling plotting tools beyond the name, missing an opportunity to distinguish e.g., from 'origin_plot_3d_surface'.

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 other 3D plot types or sibling tools. There is no discussion of prerequisites, such as data format or worksheet structure, nor any exclusion criteria. The agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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