origin_legend_set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the legend is generated from plots and that calling after plot changes refreshes it, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the rebuilt legend overwrites any existing legend, though this is implied by 'rebuild'.

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, comprising two sentences with no unnecessary fluff. It efficiently conveys the core action, the rationale, and the key parameter detail.

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's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what an agent needs to know: what it does, when to call it, and the meaning of the main parameter. There are no related legend tools among siblings, so no confusion arises.

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 schema provides no descriptions for parameters, and the description only explains the 'position' parameter's allowed values. The meanings of 'graph', 'layer', and 'show' are not explicitly described, though they may be inferred from typical Origin usage. This leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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?

Clearly states the tool's purpose: to rebuild a layer's legend, with optional placement or hiding. The description distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on legend management, which no other tool handles.

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?

Explicitly advises calling this after adding plots, which is the primary use case. It also implies the legend is derived from current plots, giving a clear when-to-use signal, even though there is no alternative legend tool to contrast with.

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