origin_set_axis

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the tool sets axis properties but does not disclose whether it overwrites existing settings, requires a specific graph state, or has side effects like invalidating other settings. The lack of detail on behavioral traits is a significant gap.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure. For a tool with 8 parameters, a bulleted list or more detail would improve usability. It is not wasteful, but it is underspecified.

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 that the tool modifies an existing graph axis and has no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., a graph must already exist), how layers are identified, or what happens if parameters are omitted. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing context.

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%, meaning the input schema has no descriptions. The tool description only mentions 'scale, limits, tick step, and title', but there are 8 parameters including graph_name, layer_index, and axis, which are not explained. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's parameter titles.

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 modifies axis scale, limits, tick step, and title. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like origin_set_axis_break and origin_format_graph by focusing on axis-specific properties. However, it could be more explicit about modifying an existing graph axis.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that it should be used after creating a plot, or when to use origin_format_graph instead. The description gives no context for selection.

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