origin_add_calculated_columns

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the formula syntax but does not mention whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions. The impact of invalid formulas or cross-sheet references is omitted, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 highly concise with four sentences, each adding value. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences explain the key detail about formula syntax. No wasted 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?

The description covers the core functionality and main parameter well but lacks details on error behavior, return values, and full parameter descriptions for book_name and sheet_name. Given that an output schema exists (though not described), the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 must compensate. It explains the 'columns' parameter structure and formula syntax, and hints at 'book_name' and 'sheet_name' usage. However, it does not fully describe these optional parameters or their default behavior, providing only partial compensation.

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's purpose: adding worksheet columns from LabTalk formulas in batch. The verb 'add' and resource 'worksheet columns' are specific. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like origin_write_worksheet or origin_filter_rows, so it loses the top score.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description focuses on syntax details rather than usage context. It does not mention when not to use or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision support.

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