sheets_update_chart_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It only mentions 'refresh the chart' as a side effect, but does not describe any other behavioral aspects such as idempotency, permission requirements, or impact on existing data. This is minimal and insufficient for full transparency.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient and to the point. It does not waste words, but it lacks any structural elements like bullet points or explicit parameter references. Still, it is appropriately sized for the task.

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 simplicity of the operation, the description covers the basic purpose but does not provide context about the expected outcome, relation to other chart operations, or any edge cases. It is adequate but could be more complete by mentioning that only the data range and title are updated, not other chart properties.

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 schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (spreadsheetId, chartId, newDataRange, updateTitle), achieving high coverage. The tool description itself does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 states a clear verb ('Update') and resource ('chart data'), and mentions refreshing the chart. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'sheets_update_chart' which might update chart properties, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope of 'chart data'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sheets_update_chart', 'sheets_create_chart', or 'sheets_get_data'. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent without sufficient direction for tool selection.

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