sheets_update_chart

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the chart must exist ('existing'), but it does not disclose important update semantics such as whether omitted optional fields reset or preserve existing values. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, and it is immediately clear what the tool does.

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?

Although the schema and annotations provide substantial detail, the description is very thin for a complex 13-parameter tool with nested objects. It does not clarify update semantics (partial merge vs. full replacement), error behavior for non-existent charts, or return values (no output schema exists). The description is minimally viable but leaves important behavioral gaps.

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% with descriptive text for all 13 parameters, including enums and usage hints (e.g., chartId references sheets_get_metadata). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level insight, so the 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 'Update an existing chart in a Google Sheets spreadsheet' uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('chart'), and the word 'existing' clearly distinguishes it from sheets_create_chart. It is concise and unambiguous.

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 use for modifying an already-existing chart, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create/delete alternatives. The chartId parameter description does mention using sheets_get_metadata to find chart IDs, providing some operational guidance, but no explicit 'when not to use' is given.

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