apex_add_jet_chart

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying the SQL alias requirement and the supported chart types, which goes beyond the structured annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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: three short sentences or fragments that immediately state the action, list types, and give the key SQL constraint. No filler words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 15 parameters and many sibling chart tools, the description is minimal. It covers the core purpose and a key constraint, but does not orient the agent among the extensive sibling chart tools (e.g., combo, area, bubble). The rich output schema and parameter descriptions compensate, but the lack of tool selection guidance makes it less complete.

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 100%, with every parameter having detailed descriptions (e.g., chart_type enumerates all options with explanations, sql_query includes an example). The description's note 'SQL must alias LABEL + VALUE' reinforces the sql_query parameter but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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: 'Add an Oracle JET chart region' with a verb and resource. It lists common chart types (bar, line, pie, donut, area), but does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling chart tools like apex_add_area_chart or apex_add_combo_chart. The schema reveals additional types (combo, bar_horizontal) not mentioned, so purpose is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 an important usage prerequisite: 'SQL must alias LABEL + VALUE.' However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus specialized chart siblings (e.g., apex_add_pareto_chart, apex_add_scatter_plot). Usage context is implied (general JET chart addition) but no explicit alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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