origin_execute_figure_spec

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

With no annotations, the description partially compensates by noting that unsupported features are reported in the plan instead of being guessed. However, it lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it modifies existing figures), authentication needs, or error behavior.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the core action and follow with a key behavioral detail. Every sentence serves a purpose without extraneous text.

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' object parameter and the existence of an output schema, the description does not set expectations for the output or provide enough context for the spec structure. While output schema exists, the description should still hint at what the tool returns.

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 input schema has 0% coverage, and the description does not explain the 'spec' object structure or the 'dry_run' parameter. It only implies that 'spec' is a declarative figure configuration, which adds minimal value beyond the parameter names from 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 clearly states the tool executes a declarative FigureSpec and specifies it supports worksheet-backed single-panel and grid multi-panel figures with common plot types. This distinguishes it from sibling plotting tools that target specific chart types or direct plotting.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like origin_plot or origin_plot_line. It does not mention when to prefer this declarative approach or any prerequisites or exclusions.

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