create_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral detail: the returned graph name may differ from graph_name if taken. However, it does not mention permissions, destructiveness (does it modify worksheet data?), or other side effects. The description is adequate but could be more transparent.

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 well-structured with a concise opening line and a clear bullet list of parameters. Every sentence provides necessary information; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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's complexity (9 parameters, multiple plot types) and the presence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers all parameters and return value behavior. Minor omissions: it does not mention preconditions like the worksheet existing or error handling, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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 the description must explain parameters thoroughly. It does so admirably: each parameter has a clear explanation, including constraints (e.g., x_col is 1-based, ignored for box/histogram) and when parameters are required (e.g., z_col required for contour and 3d_scatter). This adds substantial value beyond the schema.

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: 'Create a graph from worksheet data.' This is a specific verb-resource pair (create graph) with a data source. It distinguishes well from siblings that modify existing graphs (e.g., add_arrow, add_plot_to_graph).

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 that this tool is for creating new graphs from worksheet data, which contrasts with sibling tools for modifying graphs. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_plot_to_graph or save_graph_template. The context is clear but not explicitly stated.

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