origin_execute_figure_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses supported features and error reporting in the plan, but does not detail side effects, permissions, or resource impact.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant information, and front-loads the main action. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity of the 'spec' parameter (nested object) and the presence of an output schema, the description still falls short by not explaining parameter semantics or usage patterns. The agent would need additional information to construct a valid call.

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%, and the description provides no details on the 'spec' object or 'dry_run' parameter beyond their names. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on constructing valid inputs.

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 'Execute a declarative FigureSpec,' providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like 'origin_plan_figure_spec' or 'origin_plot', which may have overlapping purposes.

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 mentions supported figure types and behavior for unsupported features, implying use cases. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as planning or other plotting tools.

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