configure_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this mutates/overwrites existing chart configuration, creates a chart if none exists, requires permissions, or is reversible. For a write-oriented tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial gap.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler and the resource pointer clearly set off. It is structurally efficient, though the extreme brevity masks real under-specification rather than achieving it.

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 27-parameter configuration tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin to guide correct invocation. An output schema exists so return values need not be covered, but the missing parameter and behavioral detail leaves the agent poorly equipped.

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?

There are 27 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies essentially no parameter meaning. 'Chart type and field mappings' loosely gestures at mark_type and the encoding fields (rows, columns, color, label), but the vast majority of parameters remain undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope ('Configure chart type and field mappings for a worksheet'), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like configure_chart_recipe, configure_layered_chart, and configure_dual_axis, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which chart-configuration entry point fits.

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?

It points to a skill resource (read_resource('cwtwb://skills/chart_builder')) for chart type selection, which is useful supporting guidance. But it never states when to use this tool versus the several sibling chart/config tools, so usage is only implied rather than routed.

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