twilize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action is to 'Add a trend line,' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether it modifies the worksheet in place, error conditions, or side effects. The description lacks context on what happens to existing trend lines or how the addition integrates with the worksheet.

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 and key details (trend line types). There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the essential information without redundancy.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete—it only partially addresses one parameter ('fit'). However, an output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. For a mutation tool with multiple parameters, more detail on usage and behavior would improve completeness.

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 the types of trend lines (linear, polynomial, log, exp, power), which relates to the 'fit' parameter, but doesn't explain other parameters like 'worksheet_name', 'degree', 'show_confidence_bands', or 'exclude_color'. The description adds some value for 'fit' but leaves most parameters undocumented, resulting in a baseline score.

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 trend line') and the target resource ('to a worksheet'), with specific mention of the types of trend lines available (linear, polynomial, log, exp, power). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_reference_line' or 'add_reference_band' by specifying trend lines, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing worksheet with data), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'configure_chart' or 'add_reference_line' for related visualizations.

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