origin_plot_column

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without detailing side effects, such as whether the graph is added to an existing worksheet or a new one, what happens on repeated calls, or any data import mechanics. This is insufficient for a tool with 22 parameters.

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 concise sentence, which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, for a tool of this complexity, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, sacrificing necessary detail.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema and high parameter count, the description provides almost no contextual information. It does not explain the import mechanism, graph creation process, return value, or any error conditions. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior from this description alone.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter descriptions in the tool description, the description fails to add meaning beyond the parameter names. Only 'path' is implied by 'import table data'. All other 21 parameters remain unexplained, making it impossible for an agent to know their purpose or valid values.

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 imports table data and creates a column/bar-style graph. It specifies the verb and resource, and the reference to column/bar-style helps distinguish from sibling tools like origin_plot_scatter or origin_plot_line. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other plot types or mention any scope limitations.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases. With many sibling plotting tools, this gap makes it hard for an agent to select the correct tool.

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