Manage charts

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds specifics: delete removes the chart by chart_id, while update REPLACES the entire spec with no partial mutation. It also discloses that spec overrides the simplified fields, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 dense but lean, front-loading the tool's purpose and moving through actions in a logical order. Parenthetical definitions compress a lot of parameter meaning. It could be easier to scan with line breaks, but no sentence is filler.

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?

For a 12-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all key workflow elements: how to describe ranges, how to place the chart, how chart IDs are obtained, and what the add reply returns. The only mild gap is that update does not state whether position fields are honored or ignored, but overall it is sufficient.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The prose adds practical semantics beyond the schema: ranges must be single columns/rows including the header cell, header_count defaults to 1, PIE takes exactly one range, and spec overrides the simplified fields. That extra guidance justifies a 4.

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 opens with 'Manages embedded charts' and then enumerates the three selectable actions (add/update/delete), specifying that add builds a chart from chart_type plus data ranges. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling spreadsheet tools and from raw_request.

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?

It gives action-by-action guidance: add uses chart_type and ranges, update replaces the whole spec and explicitly rules out partial updates, and delete removes by chart_id. It also tells the agent where to find chartIds (get_spreadsheet) and that non-basic chart kinds should go through spec rather than the simplified fields.

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