create_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits such as the dry_run parameter (preview without changes), the default behavior of repair_dashboard_refs (no mutation unless requested), and the validate_after_create flag. It does not mention rate limits or auth, but overall transparency is good.

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 fairly long but well-structured with a purpose statement, workflow recommendation, and bullet-point parameter list. It front-loads the key information. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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?

With 12 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's behavior comprehensively, including dry_run, repair_dashboard_refs, validation, and template strategy. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 lists all 12 parameters and explains most, including examples for viz_type, the template enum, and the nuanced behavior of repair_dashboard_refs. Some parameter details (e.g., metrics can be ad-hoc objects) could be clearer, but overall adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 states 'Create a chart from an existing dataset,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like update_chart and validate_chart by outlining the recommended workflow (create_dataset → create_chart) and referencing list_datasets and list_dashboards.

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 gives explicit context on when to use the tool, referencing the recommended workflow and listing prerequisite tools (list_datasets, list_dashboards). It also hints at when not to use regarding repair_dashboard_refs (defaults to False to avoid mutation). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool in favor of alternatives.

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