add_chart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the semantic roles (category is the axis, value is the measure) and lists supported chart types, which is useful. However, it fails to disclose side effects, required session/page context, positioning defaults, or what the tool returns, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the actual verb+object and then precise enum/domain semantics. It contains no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having 14 parameters and no output schema, the description only addresses chartType and the category/value axis relationship. It leaves out how reportSessionId/pageName are used, the meaning of x/y/width/height, the optional series fields, and any return or result behavior, making it incomplete for safe invocation.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for chartType (allowed values) and clarifies category/value table-field relationships. But it omits semantics for position/size parameters and optional series parameters, relying on parameter names and schema defaults.

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 identifies the operation ('Add a chart') and specifies chart types with a compact enum, distinguishing it from generic add_visual or table/matrix tools. It clearly defines chartType values but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like add_visual or add_matrix, so it falls just short of a top score.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool instead of add_visual, add_matrix, or add_table_visual. It provides no prerequisites, context, or alternative references, so an agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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