sheets_add_chart

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

The description provides no information about side effects, required permissions, placement of the chart, or return values. Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action and chart types. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate what the tool actually does beyond the basic operation.

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 short and front-loaded: one sentence plus a list of chart types. It wastes no words and quickly conveys the core purpose. However, the extreme brevity might be seen as under-specification, but conciseness as a dimension rewards efficient wording, which this achieves.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no enum definitions) and the existence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain input formats, chart placement, or how the chart relates to the spreadsheet structure. The description adds minimal context beyond the tool name and a type list, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must clarify parameter meanings, but it only partially addresses chart_type by listing valid values. It does not explain spreadsheet_id, sheet_id, data_range, or title semantics, leaving most parameters ambiguous. The agent would need to guess what data_range format to use or what sheet_id refers to.

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 function: 'Add a chart.' Listing the supported chart types (BAR, LINE, AREA, etc.) adds specificity and distinguishes it from other 'sheets_add_*' tools like sheets_add_sheet or sheets_add_conditional_format. However, it could more explicitly state that the chart is added to a specific sheet within a spreadsheet, which is only implied by the parameter names.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sheets_add_sheet or slides_add_sheets_chart. The description merely lists chart types, so it does not explain the context of use, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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