wrap_with_input

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool wraps a cell with VoseInput("name")+ and shows it in the input list, but does not disclose if the original cell formula is modified, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens if the cell already has a VoseInput wrapper.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and includes the product prefix 'ModelRisk'. Every word serves a purpose, though it could optionally mention parameter behavior without becoming verbose.

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, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain that the cell must contain a distribution, how 'name' is used, or what the output schema contains. The return value is not explained, but since an output schema exists, that is less critical.

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 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It mentions 'name' implicitly in VoseInput("name") but offers no details about 'cell', 'sheet', 'dry_run', or 'workbook'. The title fields in the schema are minimal (e.g., 'Cell'), so the description adds almost no meaning beyond the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('wrap') and resource ('existing distribution cell') and explains the result ('appears in the input list and the Results Viewer'). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'wrap_with_output', missing a clear differentiation.

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 (e.g., 'wrap_with_output' or 'insert_distribution'). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to use it.

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