set_graph_font

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It states it 'Sets font' (a mutation) but lacks details: no mention of preconditions (graph must exist), side effects (overwrites existing font), error conditions, or whether changes are reversible. The return is vaguely described as 'Success message'.

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 extremely concise: one-line purpose, then Args section with each parameter on its own line, and Returns line. No fluff, every sentence is necessary. Front-loaded with the action.

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 a simple tool with 4 parameters and an output schema (present but not detailed), the description covers the main usage. However, it lacks contextual details: whether the graph must already exist, whether it modifies or creates, and what exactly the success message contains. Not fully complete but adequate for straightforward operation.

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 compensate. It does: explains graph_name, font_name with example, font_size with default and unit, and target with allowed values. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. Minor omissions: no format constraints, no range for font_size.

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 'Set font for graph elements', identifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_axis_labels or set_legend by focusing on font properties across multiple components. However, it could be more specific about which exact elements are targetable (already covered in target param).

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?

While the description lists allowed target values (all, axes, title, legend, tick), it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No explicit when/not-to-use guidance or references to sibling tools. The context is implied but not articulated.

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