twilize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool adds a reference band but doesn't disclose whether this is a mutating operation, what permissions are needed, if it's reversible (e.g., via 'undo_last_change'), or how it interacts with existing worksheet elements. Some context is implied (e.g., visual modification), but key behavioral traits are missing.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Add a reference band') and specifies the target ('to a worksheet') with clarifying detail ('shaded region'). There is zero wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete—it doesn't address parameters, behavioral nuances, or usage context. However, an output schema exists (per context signals), so return values needn't be explained. The description covers the basic purpose adequately but leaves significant gaps for a tool with many parameters.

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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'axis_field', 'from_value/to_value', 'from_formula/to_formula', 'scope', or 'fill_color' mean or how they affect the band. The agent must rely solely on schema property names, which are somewhat descriptive but lack semantic context.

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 action ('Add a reference band') and the target resource ('to a worksheet'), specifying it creates a 'shaded region'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_reference_line' by specifying a band/region rather than a line. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all visualization-adding siblings (e.g., 'add_trend_line'), keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_reference_line' or 'configure_chart'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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