superset_chart_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses destructive behaviors: params, query_context, and dashboards all replace entirely. It highlights the critical date format requirement and the mandatory confirm_params_replace flag when passing params. This goes far beyond basic update semantics and prevents common agent mistakes.

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 description is front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a structured Args list. Each sentence earns its place, including the nested warnings. While long, the complexity of the tool justifies the length, and the formatting aids scanability.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description fully covers all parameters, provides cross-references to chart_create and chart_get, and explains the tricky replacement/dependency behaviors. The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. This is complete for a complex mutation tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. Every parameter is described with purpose and critical constraints, including format references, replacement semantics, and required confirmation. It adds meaning well beyond the bare schema property names.

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 description opens with 'Update an existing chart' which clearly specifies the verb (update) and resource (existing chart). It distinguishes from chart_create by explicitly saying 'existing' and from chart_get by using 'update'. No ambiguity.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Pass only the fields to change' implies partial updates. It directs the user to chart_get for current params and chart_create for valid types, giving clear context on how to use the tool correctly. It also warns about the need to update query_context when params change, which is valuable usage advice.

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