create-excel-chart

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description adds no new behavioral insights. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., modifying the worksheet), error conditions, or that the chart is created in a specific worksheet (implied by parameters).

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 extremely concise (one short phrase). While not verbose, it is under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters, including a nested body. It could benefit from a few more sentences without becoming wordy.

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?

The description fails to convey essential context: it does not mention that the chart is added to an Excel worksheet, what the body object represents, or expected return behavior. Given the complexity (6 params, required body), this is incomplete.

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 high (83%), so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no parameter-level guidance. It does not explain the 'body' structure or the meaning of 'sourceData' and 'seriesBy', which are crucial for correct invocation.

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 'Creates a new chart' clearly identifies the action (create) and resource (chart). The tool name 'create-excel-chart' reinforces this. However, it lacks specificity about the context (e.g., Excel worksheet) which is implied by the schema but not stated.

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 siblings like 'create-excel-table'. The description gives no context about prerequisites, such as requiring an existing worksheet or data range. The agent must infer usage from the schema.

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