insert_distribution

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses dry_run default and validation, but does not mention side effects like overwriting cells, permissions, or error handling. Moderate transparency.

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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds distinct value: core action and behavioral note.

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?

Despite 6 parameters and many siblings, the description omits prerequisites (e.g., workbook must be open), return value format, and how parameters map to Vose formula syntax. Low completeness for the tool's complexity.

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 only 17%, yet the tool description adds minimal parameter context beyond a function name example. The 'parameters' array and other fields remain unexplained, forcing the agent to guess or rely on external knowledge.

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 writes a Vose distribution formula into a cell, specifies the function name validation against the ModelRisk catalogue, and distinguishes itself from siblings that perform computations, fitting, or other actions.

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 implies usage for inserting distribution formulas but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives like 'compute_distribution' or 'write_formula'. The dry_run note is behavioral, not usage context.

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