configure_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that this tool modifies an existing worksheet (mutation), nor does it discuss side effects, authorization needs, or error conditions. The description is too vague for a tool with 23 parameters.

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 sentence, which is concise but underspecified for a complex tool with many parameters. It could be improved by adding brief parameter grouping or key behaviors without becoming overly long.

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's high complexity (23 parameters, no schema description coverage), the description is inadequate. It does not explain how chart types are set, what field mappings are expected, or how the output is structured. The existence of an output schema does not relieve the description of providing high-level 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 0%, meaning the description adds no meaning to any of the 23 parameters. The description merely says 'chart type and field mappings' but does not explain how parameters like 'color', 'filters', or 'axis_fixed_range' map to chart configuration. The description should at least summarize parameter roles.

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 verb 'configure' and the resource 'chart type and field mappings for a worksheet', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'configure_dual_axis' or 'configure_worksheet_style'. It specifies what is being configured.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'configure_chart_recipe' or 'configure_dual_axis'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the worksheet must already exist) or when not to use it.

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