twilize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool adds a reference line but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a mutating operation, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the output contains. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes helpful examples. Every part of the sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's purpose concisely.

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 the complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter usage, behavioral implications, or provide context for when to use the tool. The output schema may cover return values, but the description lacks necessary operational details for effective use.

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 mentions 'constant, average, median, etc.', which loosely relates to the 'formula' parameter, but doesn't explain any of the 8 parameters (e.g., 'worksheet_name', 'axis_field', 'value', 'scope'). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 line') and the target ('to a worksheet'), with examples of line types ('constant, average, median, etc.'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_reference_band' or 'add_trend_line' by specifying reference lines, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_reference_band' or 'add_trend_line'. The description mentions types of reference lines but doesn't specify contexts or prerequisites for use. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit when/when-not instructions.

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