Add a chart

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

The description discloses that the tool saves the workbook and mimics Excel's Insert Chart behavior, and it details how the data is interpreted and how placement works. It also mentions that xlide_list_shapes will report the chart afterwards. Since all annotations are false, the description carries the full burden. It covers the main mutation (saving) and data handling, but does not discuss reversibility, permissions, or failure modes, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, well-structured paragraph. It opens with the core action ('Adds a chart... and saves the workbook'), then provides data interpretation, placement, and verification. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise yet thorough, though slightly longer than necessary due to the detailed data-layout explanation.

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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how data is structured, how to position the chart, and how to confirm the result via xlide_list_shapes. It does not explicitly mention prerequisites like file being open or error handling, but these are not critical for the core usage. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 already documents all 12 parameters with individual descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining how data_range is interpreted (first row as series names, first column as categories, and how column vs row series are auto-detected). It also clarifies placement options (cell vs left/top in points). This enrichment justifies a score above baseline.

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 tool adds a chart of a block of cells to a worksheet and saves the workbook. It specifies the exact action and resource, and the data interpretation details (first row names series, first column categories) further clarify its function. It is distinct from sibling tools like xlide_manage_shape because it explicitly targets chart creation, not generic shape management.

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 clear context on how to use the tool: it explains the expected data layout, how series are determined, that data can reside on another sheet, and how to place the chart. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusion criteria. This is a minor gap given the unambiguous nature of the tool's purpose.

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