Add a constant or field-backed native filled band on an existing axis.
Add a constant or field-backed native filled band on an existing axis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope | No | per-pane | |
| axis_field | Yes | ||
| fill_color | No | #f5f5f5 | |
| pane_index | No | ||
| lower_field | No | ||
| lower_label | No | ||
| lower_value | No | ||
| upper_field | No | ||
| upper_label | No | ||
| upper_value | No | ||
| lower_formula | No | min | |
| upper_formula | No | max | |
| worksheet_name | Yes |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals a mutating 'Add' and a 'native' band, but says nothing about prerequisites (an existing axis), reversibility, permissions, or how the lower/upper values interact — a substantial gap for a mutation tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though for a 13-parameter tool that efficiency shades into under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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?
With no annotations, 13 undocumented parameters, and only a one-line description, the definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation. The output schema relieves it of explaining return values, but the input side remains severely under-described.
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 13 parameters. The phrase 'constant or field-backed' loosely maps to the value/field pairs and lower/upper defaults, but the description never explains lower_value vs lower_field, formulas (min/max), labels, scope, or pane_index — leaving most parameters undocumented.
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 gives a specific verb (Add), resource (native filled band), and scope constraint (on an existing axis), plus a constant-vs-field-backed distinction. This lets an agent distinguish it from add_reference_line and add_percentage_band by implication, though neither sibling is named.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only constraint, 'on an existing axis', is scope rather than a selection rule, so the agent gets no help choosing between this and add_reference_line / add_percentage_band.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.