put_matrix

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It reveals that the tool stores a matrix in the workspace, but it does not disclose whether it overwrites existing matrices with the same name, any size limits, or error behavior on invalid input. For a state-changing tool, this is a significant gap.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a compact parameter format explanation. It includes a concrete example which is valuable. Slightly more structure could help, but it's appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 simple with only 2 parameters and no nested objects. The description covers the values format well. However, it does not mention what the output schema entails (likely a success message or matrix object), and it lacks behavioral context like overwrite semantics. Given the simplicity, it's adequate but not complete.

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 must compensate. It provides detailed syntax for the 'values' parameter (rows separated by semicolons, numbers by commas/spaces, with an example). The 'name' parameter is only implied as the matrix name, which is fairly clear from context but not explicitly described. The 'values' explanation goes well beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool creates a matrix in the workspace from numbers provided. It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('matrix in the workspace'), and distinguishes from siblings like get_matrix (read) and read_csv (import from file), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need to create a matrix from literal numbers in the conversation) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like read_csv for file-based data. Minimal guidance beyond the core purpose.

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