configure_chart_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'shared recipe registry', implying the chart is configured from a predefined recipe, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or what happens when auto_ensure_prerequisites is false. It is not contradictory but lacks behavioral detail.

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 that conveys the core purpose without extra words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 has 4 parameters (2 required), an output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'configure' entails, the role of recipe_args, or the return value. The output schema exists but the description doesn't leverage it to reduce completeness burden.

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%, so the description should add meaning. However, it does not describe any parameters. The schema already defines fields like worksheet_name, recipe_name, recipe_args, and auto_ensure_prerequisites, but the description adds no extra semantics beyond the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 applies given the schema is the only source.

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 states the tool configures a showcase recipe chart via the shared recipe registry, providing a clear verb ('configure') and resource ('showcase recipe chart'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'configure_chart' and 'configure_dual_axis' by specifying 'through the shared recipe registry', but lacks explicit differentiation from similar recipe-related tools.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Given the sibling tools include 'configure_chart' and many others, the description should clarify use cases or when not to use it. The context of 'showcase recipe' is implied but not explicitly compared.

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