add_chart_callouts

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

With no annotations, the description partially covers behavior: each callout has an arrow, points structure is given, and it returns an enhanced figure dict. However, it does not disclose whether the input figure is mutated or if there are side effects like overwriting existing annotations. The return type is mentioned but no details on the enhanced dict structure.

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 concise with three sentences: first states purpose, second explains points structure, third states return value. Every sentence is essential and there is no unnecessary text.

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 4 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description adequately explains the points structure and return type. It could mention limitations (e.g., number of callouts) or that the figure should be from create_chart(). Overall, it provides sufficient context for a moderately complex tool.

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 provides 100% coverage for parameters, but the description adds meaningful detail: it documents optional fields 'ax' and 'ay' in points (not in schema), specifies the figure comes from create_chart(), and clarifies prefix/suffix as text before/after each callout. This adds value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: adding multiple annotation callout boxes to highlight data points. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_chart_annotation and add_chart_highlight_zone through the specific mention of callout boxes with arrows and the structured point data.

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 alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring a figure from create_chart(), nor any exclusion criteria. The description implicitly indicates use for highlighting data points but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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