sheets_update_chart

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update an existing chart', which implies mutation but does not disclose whether updates are incremental or full replacement, required permissions, side effects, or any destructive aspects. This is insufficient for a complex 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 a single concise sentence, front-loading the core action. However, it is slightly too brief; a short overview of updatable aspects (e.g., chart type, axes, series) would improve usefulness without significant bloat.

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 13 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not provide a complete picture. It omits how updates work (e.g., partial vs full replacement), what the return value is, or any interaction between parameters. The schema covers parameters but the description lacks behavioral context.

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 schema details each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; however, the chartId parameter description (in schema) includes helpful guidance to use sheets_get_metadata. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool updates an existing chart, using specific verb 'Update' and resource 'existing chart'. This readily distinguishes it from sibling tools like sheets_create_chart and sheets_delete_chart.

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 implies usage when an existing chart needs modification, but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other update tools (e.g., sheets_update_borders) or any prerequisites like having the chart ID. No when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned.

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