origin_graph_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that Origin may store values without acting on them, that the result only reports the intended write location rather than success, and that expGraph says almost nothing about failure. This is substantial, honest behavioral context.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second paragraph adds valuable caveats without unnecessary padding; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose and failure behavior well, and an output schema exists to explain return values. However, with no annotations and zero parameter descriptions, the agent still lacks enough detail about how to correctly specify graph, filename, directory, and width.

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 needed to explain the parameters, but it does not clarify graph, width, filename, or directory semantics. It only hints that filename/directory are the write destination, leaving the agent to infer how to populate the required fields.

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 opening sentence, 'Export a graph to a PNG,' states a specific verb and resource and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like origin_plot or origin_graph_info. The added context about verifying style changes reinforces its unique role.

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 explicitly identifies when to use this tool: it is 'the only way to find out whether a style change did anything.' It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative tools, but the 'only way' framing provides strong usage direction.

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