replace_constant_with_distribution

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool overwrites a non-Vose cell and does so by design, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to the original value.

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 three concise sentences, each adding value: first states the action, second gives usage context, third stresses uniqueness. No unnecessary words.

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 tool has 7 required parameters and an output schema, the description lacks essential details about parameter semantics and expected values. It provides high-level purpose but insufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for its 7 parameters, yet the description provides no information about any parameter (cell, sheet, workbook, function_name, parameters, input_name, dry_run). This is a critical gap for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 replaces a hard-coded number with a Vose distribution wrapped by VoseInput. It specifies the context (ModelRisk) and differentiates from siblings by noting it is the only tool that overwrites a non-Vose cell.

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 explicit guidance to use after find_hard_coded_inputs identifies candidates, establishing a clear workflow. It implies when not to use (not for cells already containing distributions) but does not explicitly list alternatives.

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