add_chart_annotation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states that the tool adds an annotation with an optional arrow, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the input figure is mutated, what the function returns, or any side effects. The return value and state changes are not mentioned.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that convey the core purpose and a key feature. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it could be slightly more informative given the tool's parameter complexity.

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 has 7 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain the return value, that the figure is manipulated, or that the figure should come from create_chart(). Sibling tools and usage context are absent.

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%, providing baseline. The description adds minimal context by describing the annotation as a 'text box with optional arrow,' which aligns with the 'show_arrow' parameter. It does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already defines for parameters like x, y, figure, etc.

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 callout annotation to a chart for storytelling, with a text box and optional arrow. It specifies the resource (chart) and action (add callout annotation), but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'add_chart_callouts', which may overlap in functionality.

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 'add_chart_callouts', 'add_chart_highlight_zone', or 'add_chart_threshold_line'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use this tool.

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