set_legend

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it configures legend and returns a success message, but does not disclose behavioral details such as error handling, permissions required, or side effects on existing legend settings.

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 well-structured docstring with clear Args and Returns sections. It is concise, each line adds value, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. No redundancy.

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 basic functionality but omits details about return value content (e.g., what success message looks like) and error conditions. Given no output schema shown, more completeness would help.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It provides example values for 'position' (top-left, etc.) and explains 'entries' as comma-separated, which goes beyond schema type string. This adds value for agent understanding.

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 'Configure graph legend' is a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_axis_labels' or 'add_plot_to_graph', which focus on other aspects of graph configuration.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, no guidance is given on when to choose this over other legend-related tools, such as setting legend properties individually.

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