Add a native percentage distribution band on an existing axis.
Add a native percentage distribution band on an existing axis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | per-pane | |
| formula | No | average | |
| symmetric | No | ||
| axis_field | Yes | ||
| fill_color | No | #00000000 | |
| pane_index | No | ||
| percentage | No | ||
| probability | No | 95 | |
| value_field | No | ||
| worksheet_name | Yes | ||
| reverse_palette | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.28.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether the band is persisted to the workbook, whether it requires an existing axis to be present (only implied), what happens on re-invocation, or what the operation returns. The single word 'native' hints at a rendering distinction but is unexplained.
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 one sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, so it is structurally fine. However, brevity here reads as under-specification rather than efficiency given the tool's 11 parameters and mutation semantics.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description is otherwise inadequate: 11 undocumented parameters, no annotations, no usage guidance, and no behavioral disclosure for a tool that mutates a worksheet's axis rendering.
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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not mention a single parameter. Fields like scope, formula, probability, symmetric, and reverse_palette are completely opaque to the 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?
States a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('percentage distribution band') plus a scoping constraint ('on an existing axis'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from the closely related sibling add_reference_band, leaving the agent to guess which band type to choose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus add_reference_band, add_reference_line, or configure_chart, nor any prerequisite beyond the implicit 'existing axis'. The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.