Create DataLens wizard chart

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true), so the bar is lowered. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context — that the created entry is returned with its id — but says nothing about required permissions, side effects on the workbook, or what happens on repeated calls.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value, with no filler. The second sentence is somewhat fragmentary in phrasing ('is a valid ``data``') but earns its place by encoding the interop contract.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by stating the return value (the chart with its id). It also addresses the nested `data` object by pointing to schema_get(service="datalens", name="WizardChartData") rather than leaving it opaque. The remaining gap is the absence of workflow/alternative guidance in a crowded field of chart-create siblings.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents key, name, annotation, and workbook_id. The description adds one piece of meaning beyond the schema for the `data` parameter: that it is interchangeable with `entry.data` from charts_wizard_get, which is a helpful compatibility cue but not a syntactic or structural clarification.

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 ('Create a chart of the wizard in a workbook') and even notes the return payload (the id), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling creation tools (datalens_charts_ql_create, datalens_charts_editor_create), leaving the agent to infer that 'wizard' is the distinguishing axis.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, nor a named alternative among the wizard/ql/editor create siblings. The only usage signal is the implied round-trip workflow: data fetched via charts_wizard_get is valid input, which hints at a get-then-create pattern but stops short of stating it as guidance.

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