origin_axis_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and excels: it discloses clamping/rounding of axis ranges, the internal axis swap for horizontal bar charts, and the fact that `matches_request` is a genuine verification. These are non-obvious and valuable behavioral details.

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 dense but well organized: purpose first, then parameter behavior, then important caveats. Every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary filler.

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?

For a complex tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this description covers the essential guide: scope, real validation behavior, saturation effects, and a subtle internal axis-swapping hazard. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 adds concrete meaning for `scale` by listing valid names, explains that omitted arguments are untouched, and warns about axis semantics in bar charts. It could go further on `graph`, `layer`, `start`, `end`, and `increment`, but the core parameters are well clarified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set an axis's scale, range or title, and read back what Origin holds.' This clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like origin_axis_get and from plot-style setters like origin_plot_option_set.

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 gives clear context, such as 'Omitted arguments are left alone' and 'Unlike plot styles, these read back from the same properties Origin draws from.' It does not explicitly list alternative tools or when to prefer them, but the usage context is strong.

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