slides_add_sheets_chart

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose side effects and prerequisites. It explains the linked parameter's refreshable behavior, but doesn't clarify whether embedding overwrites existing slides, required permissions, or any limitations. It adds a small amount of behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a key parameter. Every word adds value.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool without annotations, the description is under-specified. It covers the core action and linked behavior but omits positioning defaults, how to locate chart_id, and any prerequisites. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value ambiguity.

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, but it only explains the 'linked' parameter. Other parameters like x_pt, y_pt, width_pt, height_pt, spreadsheet_id, chart_id are not elaborated, though their names are fairly self-explanatory.

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 embeds a Google Sheet chart into a slide, using a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from inserting images/tables/videos. The mention of linked=True adds useful specification.

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 no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It implies usage for embedding charts, and explains the linked parameter, but does not exclude other methods like embedding an image. This is minimal guidance.

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