chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no side effects, no indication that insert mutates a live document, no note that delete is destructive/irreversible, no permission or handle prerequisites. Only the verb choice hints at mutation.

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?

It is compact and front-loads the resource name, with zero filler words. But the density tips into under-specification: a single run-on signature line is the entire description, leaving no room for the operational context a 13-parameter tool needs.

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?

For a 13-parameter tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It omits data format expectations, the meaning of handle, return behavior, and error/edge conditions, so an agent has significant gaps to fill by guesswork.

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 only 38% (at, frame, margin, handle, target are documented in the schema), so the description is expected to compensate. It lists parameter names grouped by action—adding the useful action-scoping the schema lacks—but gives no meaning for data, style, caption, the boolean flags, or the type enum, and never explains handle, at, or target semantics.

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 opens with only the resource name ("차트" / chart) and then enumerates insert/update/delete actions, so the operation set is conveyed but there is no prose stating what the tool does or what a 'chart' object is. It is essentially a signature restatement rather than a purpose statement, and it does not differentiate itself from siblings like table or shape beyond the noun.

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 action-scoped parameter lists implicitly tell the agent which arguments each action needs (insert→at, update/delete→target), which is real routing guidance absent from the schema. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of preconditions (e.g. requiring an open document handle), and no mention of alternatives among the 22 sibling tools.

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