update_chart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: dry_run for validation without changes, strict semantics for params_json requiring complete payloads, and an optional validation step. It does not cover error handling or permissions, but the main behavioral traits are well described.

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 well-structured with a clear high-level summary followed by detailed parameter explanations. It is slightly lengthy but front-loads the purpose and key behaviors. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy exists between the narrative and the Args list.

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's complexity (7 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: parameter roles, strict JSON semantics, dry run, and validation. It does not discuss return values or error scenarios, but the output schema likely covers those. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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?

Despite zero schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains each parameter in the Args list, including the critical strict semantics of params_json and the behavior of dry_run and validate_after_update. It adds meaning beyond the schema by providing usage examples and warnings.

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 the tool's purpose: updating an existing chart's title, viz type, or parameters. It identifies the specific resource (chart) and actions, and differentiates from siblings like create_chart and list_charts by focusing on modification.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (for updating existing charts), including a reference to list_charts for finding the chart_id and advice on using get_chart for inspecting params. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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