insert_bar_chart

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention what happens if para_id is invalid, whether it replaces an existing chart, or any side effects. Only the series format is hinted.

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 very brief and includes a useful example inline. It is efficient, though a structured listing of parameters would improve readability without much length.

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 4 required parameters and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits how to specify the target paragraph (para_id), chart title, categories, and sizing options. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but input details are lacking.

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. It only partially explains the series parameter via an example; other required parameters (para_id, title, categories) and optional ones (width_cm, height_cm) are left unexplained.

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 action ('Insert') and resource ('native bar chart'), and distinguishes from other chart tools by noting 'no Excel required'. It also provides a concise example of the series parameter, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over sibling chart tools like insert_line_chart or insert_pie_chart. No prerequisites, context, or use cases are mentioned.

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