origin_set_axis_break

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains the effect (hides a range) but does not mention whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions. The description lacks clarity on side effects or state changes beyond the break.

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 paragraph that front-loads the purpose and explains key parameters. It is reasonably concise but could be more compact by combining sentences. No redundant information is present.

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?

The description covers most parameters and the core functionality, but it omits explanation of graph_name and layer_index, which are important for targeting the correct graph. It also does not mention the existence of an output schema (which is present) or any prerequisites. Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters), the description is moderately complete.

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 schema itself has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining 6 of 8 parameters (break_from, break_to, axis, position, post_break_increment, enabled) with additional context (e.g., position as percent of axis length). However, graph_name and layer_index are not mentioned.

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 adds or removes an axis break on a graph axis. It specifies the action ('Add or remove') and the resource ('axis break on a graph axis'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like origin_set_axis which set axis properties without breaking.

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 implies usage for adding or removing axis breaks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., origin_set_axis). No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites is provided.

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