Create DataLens QL chart

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readonly, open-world, non-idempotent create. The description adds one useful behavioral note: the reply is the raw DataLens response and its shape is undocumented, warning the agent the return payload is opaque. It says nothing about permissions, side effects, or what happens on repeat calls, so it adds modest value over annotations.

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 operation is front-loaded well in a single phrase. The second sentence is short but is a meta-disclaimer ('the specification describes neither...') rather than actionable information, so its value is marginal and it partly calls attention to its own incompleteness.

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?

This is a mutation tool creating nested-object content, with no output schema and no annotation coverage of the data contract. The description explicitly admits it does not describe the chart content or the reply, leaving an agent without guidance on what 'data' should contain or what it gets back.

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 parameters like template, data, and workbook_id are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond the schema, 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 QL chart'), which is clear enough that an agent knows the operation type. However, it never distinguishes this from the sibling creation tools (datalens_charts_wizard_create, datalens_charts_editor_create), leaving the choice between chart flavors unexplained.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. workbook_id requirement), and no mention of the wizard/editor alternatives. The second sentence is a caveat about unspecified content, not usage guidance.

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