create_tornado_chart

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

Discloses idempotent replacement, sheet content (sorted data table + native Excel chart), default naming with truncation, and largest-magnitude input at top. No annotations provided, so description fully covers behavior.

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?

Five sentences, each with distinct value. Front-loaded with main purpose. Slightly long but no redundancy. Structure is clear and logical.

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 tool complexity, covers purpose, behavior, output format, naming, and usage context. Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds context about sheet content and idempotency but doesn't significantly elaborate on parameter semantics beyond 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?

Clearly states the tool renders a tornado chart of input sensitivity as a new sheet, using specific verb 'Render' and resource 'tornado chart'. Differentiates from siblings by noting persistence vs. MCP return.

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?

Explicitly says it's useful when the user wants visualization persisted, implying alternative (e.g., get_sensitivity_ranking) for MCP data. Could mention prerequisites like existing simulation results.

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