origin_plot_auto

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the routing decision logic (intent vs. column types/cardinality/selected columns) and signals a side effect by saying it 'creates the plot.' But it does not disclose effects on Origin state — e.g., whether a workbook is imported, a graph page is created, or whether the file is modified — which matters for a plotting tool with 23 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by intent guidance and the alternative recommendation. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 tool is complex (23 parameters, no annotations) and the description explains the central routing model well; an output schema covers return values so those need not be described. Gaps remain: no guidance on choosing origin_plot vs. origin_plot_auto, no mention of Origin-side side effects (graph page/workbook creation), and no note on how export_path or style_mode interact with the auto flow. Adequate but not complete given the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema by explaining when the intent parameter should be supplied and by identifying which parameters feed the auto-router (X/Y/Z and error columns). This is meaningful added semantics rather than restating the parameter descriptions.

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 first sentence states a specific multi-step action — inspect table columns, select a chart route, and create the plot — naming the resource (table/file columns) and outcome (a plot). It also differentiates from the sibling origin_recommend_chart by noting that tool is used when no graph should be created yet. However, it does not contrast with the similarly named origin_plot sibling, so the 'auto-routing' distinction must be inferred.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance: provide intent when the desired comparison or relationship is known, otherwise the router falls back on column types, cardinality, and selected X/Y/Z or error columns. It explicitly names origin_recommend_chart and the condition that selects it ('when no graph should be created yet'). It does not, however, address when to prefer the explicit origin_plot tool over this automatic variant, which is the most likely source of agent confusion.

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