origin_plot_style_setter_coverage

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or meaning of 'executable safe setters'. The tool likely reads data, but this is not stated.

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 without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action, but could benefit from structured breakdown of parameters.

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 tool has two optional parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description should explain how to use them. It does not, and although an output schema exists, the description lacks context about what the report contains.

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%, but the description provides no information about the two optional parameters (chart_type, plot_type_id). It fails to add meaning beyond the schema, leaving users to guess their purpose.

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 reports which style registry entries have executable safe setters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'origin_set_plot_style' by focusing on coverage rather than setting styles, but does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'origin_plot_style_capabilities'.

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. Given siblings include 'origin_plot_style_capabilities', which may be related, the description lacks context or exclusions.

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