apply_color_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the graph must already be a colormapped plot and that the tool changes the color mapping. It does not mention whether the operation is reversible, if it overwrites existing palettes, or any side effects, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured, with a clear one-sentence summary followed by a parameter list. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's purpose, parameter details, and return value (success message). Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (though not shown), it is nearly complete. Minor omissions like case sensitivity or error handling prevent a perfect score.

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, the description fully compensates by explaining graph_name as a graph that must hold a colormapped plot and palette with a rich list of recommended options, including bundled colorblind-safe maps and built-in Origin palettes, far exceeding the schema's minimal type hints.

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 explicitly states the tool applies a color palette to contour/heatmap/surface graphs, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like set_colormap_levels, which adjusts levels, and set_plot_style, which changes line style, by focusing solely on palette application.

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 context for when to use by listing recommended palettes and noting the graph must already hold a colormapped plot. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving room for ambiguity among sibling tools.

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