spss_compute

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

The description discloses the main mutating behavior—overwriting an existing target variable—and notes the external dependency on SPSS. However, with no annotations, it leaves important behavioral details unstated, such as what happens to the input file when output_path is omitted and whether the operation modifies the file in place.

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 and front-loaded with the core action. The two sentences plus examples contain no filler, and the most important parameter semantics are presented efficiently.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description only partially covers what is needed to call it correctly. It explains expression and the overwrite caveat, but omits file_path and output_path semantics and how this tool differs from its many transformation siblings; the presence of an output schema does not fill those gaps.

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 for all four parameters. It adds useful meaning for expression with examples and implies target_variable's role, but file_path and output_path are left unexplained, and target_variable has no explicit constraints or naming rules.

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's action: creating a new variable or overwriting an existing one with a computed expression. It names the resource (variable) and provides concrete examples, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like spss_compute_scale_score or spss_if_transform.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus nearby alternatives such as spss_compute_scale_score, spss_if_transform, or spss_recode. The only operational note, 'Requires IBM SPSS Statistics,' is a prerequisite rather than a selection rule.

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