update_chart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral requirement (confirm=true) and hints at a preview mode, which is valuable. However, it omits details about side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what preview returns.

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 single sentence that front-loads the action and the key requirement. It contains no filler or redundant words, making it appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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 has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. It does not explain the preview/update workflow, the distinction between params and query_context, the effect on existing chart settings, or any return value.

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 compensate. It maps some updateable fields (params, query_context, dashboard_ids) and explains confirm's role, but it does not clarify the structure of free-form objects (params, query_context) or explain slice_name/description beyond their self-evident names.

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 specifies a clear action ('update' or 'preview') on a chart resource and lists the affected aspects (parameters, query context, dashboard links). It distinguishes from siblings like create_chart and get_chart, though the dual 'preview or update' phrasing introduces minor ambiguity.

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 this tool is for modifying an existing chart, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like create_chart or update_dashboard. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided, leaving usage to be inferred.

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