insert_line_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only gives a brief example for the 'series' parameter but does not describe side effects (e.g., does it overwrite existing content?), authorization needs, or return values. The existence of an output schema is noted but not explained in the description.

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 very short (one sentence plus an example), which is concise but lacks structure. The example for 'series' is valuable but could be formatted as part of a parameter description. It earns its brevity but misses opportunities to improve clarity.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 4 required) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use 'para_id' or 'categories', nor does it describe the return value or behavior when inputs are invalid. The presence of an output schema reduces the necessity to explain return values, but the description still omits critical usage context.

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%, meaning the description adds no formal parameter explanations. However, it does include an example for the 'series' parameter ('[{"name": str, "values": [float, ...]}]') which adds some context. Other required parameters (para_id, title, categories) and optional ones (width_cm, height_cm) are not described. Partial compensation but insufficient for the 0% coverage.

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 'Insert a native line chart.', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling chart tools (e.g., insert_bar_chart, insert_pie_chart). However, 'native' is not elaborated, and the description could be more precise about what makes it native.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other chart tools or alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases. The description implicitly assumes the agent knows when to insert a line chart, but fails to provide explicit selection criteria.

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