configure_layered_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states no mutation semantics, side effects, permission/auth needs, reversibility, or whether it requires a pre-existing layered chart, despite 'configure'/'Build' implying a write to an existing worksheet. Only niche sort/table-calc semantics are disclosed.

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 text is short but misallocated: it front-loads a vague purpose sentence and then spends most of its length on sort_mode and table_calc_context, two of the least central parameters, while ignoring the core panes/rows/columns inputs. Structure does not prioritize what an agent needs first.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the description should define the encodings/panes model and most parameters. It covers roughly two parameters and leaves the rest to guesswork, so an agent cannot reliably construct a correct call.

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 coverage is 0% across 14 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does not. It clarifies only sort_mode values and table_calc_context, leaving rows, columns, panes, filters, axis_shelf, sort_field, synchronized, table_calc_overrides and others entirely undocumented.

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 opening line gives a verb and a loose resource ('Build layered panes with encodings, ordered values and native styles'), but 'layered panes' is jargon that doesn't map to an obvious user concept, and nothing distinguishes this tool from siblings like configure_chart, configure_dual_axis, or configure_chart_recipe. An agent can infer it configures a multi-pane chart, but only vaguely.

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 explains what two sort_mode values mean, but never says when to reach for this tool versus configure_chart/configure_dual_axis/configure_chart_recipe, nor any prerequisite (e.g., an existing worksheet/layered view). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is present.

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