origin_add_inset

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

With no annotations provided, the description conveys key behavioral traits: placement as percentages, zoom capability via x_start/x_end/y_start/y_end, and auto-scaling. It adds context beyond basic purpose but does not cover prerequisites or effects on the original graph.

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 concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose sentence followed by two sentences of essential details. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy or fluff.

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 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema details visible, the description covers the core workflow but omits prerequisites (e.g., graph must exist), error handling, and the return value (though output schema exists). It is adequate but has gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the roles of left, top, width, height, worksheet, x_col, y_cols, and the zoom parameters, but does not describe graph_name or plot_type. This provides moderate but incomplete semantic enrichment.

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 adds an inset (small embedded layer) to an existing graph, with specific verb 'add' and resource 'inset'. It distinguishes from siblings like origin_add_plot_to_graph by specifying it's an embedded sub-layer.

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 use for adding a magnified detail view or a small embedded plot, and explains zooming options. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like origin_add_plot_to_graph or the various origin_plot_* tools, nor does it mention 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.