add_chart

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Add a chart') and input data, but does not mention side effects (e.g., modifies the presentation, appends to slide), permissions, mutability, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool without annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and is easily scannable, matching the standard for concise tool descriptions.

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?

Even though the schema is rich, the description lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existing presentation/slide), whether the chart is appended or replaces content, or any return value. With no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for a 9-parameter mutation tool.

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?

The input schema fully describes all 9 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds slight value by enumerating chartType options and mentioning 'data', but this is largely redundant with the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action ('Add') and resource ('a chart ... to a slide'), and lists example chart types (bar, line, pie). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like add_text, add_shape, add_image, and add_table, which target different slide element types.

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?

Although it does not explicitly state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, the context is clear: use this tool when a chart needs to be added to a slide. The sibling tool names reinforce the differentiation, providing enough contextual guidance for basic selection.

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