Charts: create

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/read and safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: settings are validated and the call is refused with problems listed, and the chart stays invisible until attached to a dashboard. It doesn't detail permission requirements or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and then packs workflow, side-effect and return-format facts into a few tight sentences with no filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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 25-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow, validation/refusal behavior, and the post-create visibility constraint. It notes 'Returns JSON' but the absence of an output schema leaves return shape largely unstated, a minor gap given the richness elsewhere.

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% and the parameter docs are very detailed, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Create a chart') and immediately clarifies the three data sources it can plot (entity records, platform usage metric, plan quota), naming the relevant sibling charts_platform_metrics. An agent can distinguish it from charts_update/charts_preview without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit workflow guidance ('Check it first with charts preview') and names where the result must go next (dashboards_add_chart or dashboards_create). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g. editing an existing chart via charts_update), so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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