refine_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 indicates that the tool modifies an existing chart (mutation), but does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or whether changes are reversible. For a simple modification tool, this is adequate but could be more informative.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and requirements. No unnecessary information.

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 the tool has two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand how to use it. It could mention what the tool returns, but the absence is not critical.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds value by providing context: 'chart ID from a previous generate_chart call' for chartId and examples like 'make the bars blue' for modification. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the action (modify), resource (existing chart), and required inputs (chart ID from previous generate_chart call and modification description). It distinguishes from sibling tools: generate_chart creates new charts, list_styles lists available styles.

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 when to use the tool (when you have an existing chart and want to modify it) and what inputs to provide. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the context from sibling tools makes it clear.

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