create_chart

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool works from a contiguous range or explicit series, which is functional context but does not disclose further behavioral nuances like side effects or modifications to the worksheet. It does not contradict annotations, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 primary action, and includes a useful sibling reference without any extraneous detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

This is a complex tool with 14 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools. The description covers the basic purpose and entry-point preference but does not explain required vs optional parameters, return behavior, or what happens to existing charts. Given the high complexity, it is notably incomplete.

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?

With 14 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the heavy burden of explaining parameters. It only hints at the data_range vs series distinction via 'contiguous range or explicit series,' but leaves style, title, width, height, placement, target_cell, and other parameters completely unexplained. This is insufficient compensation for the schema gap.

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's function: 'Create chart in worksheet from a contiguous range or explicit series.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool create_chart_from_series by positioning this as the preferred chart authoring entry point.

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?

It explicitly positions this as the 'preferred chart authoring entry point' and mentions create_chart_from_series as an alternative for explicit-series calls. This provides clear context for when to use this tool, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance beyond the sibling reference.

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