origin_save_graph_template

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It explains the storage location and basic function but does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing templates), permissions, or whether the graph remains unchanged. The 'overwrite' parameter is not described.

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 and front-loaded. The first sentence states purpose, and the second paragraph adds relevant usage details. No filler or repetition.

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 8 parameters and an output schema, the description could be more complete. It explains the main workflow but leaves out important parameters like 'graph_name' and 'overwrite'. It also does not differentiate from similar siblings like origin_update_template_metadata.

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 description must explain parameters. It mentions 'plot_types', 'roles', and 'n_columns' for search metadata, and 'name' as required. However, it omits 'graph_name', 'description', 'tags', and 'overwrite', which are not explained.

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's purpose: saving a finished graph as a reusable template. It explains how to reuse it later and provides context on metadata. This distinguishes it from siblings like search, delete, or update metadata.

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 usage context: how to reuse the template in plotting tools and how to populate metadata for searchability. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with siblings like origin_update_template_metadata.

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