create_line_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 nothing: not that this mutates the analysis, not the required permissions, not whether the chart is persisted to the given sheet, and not what happens on invalid column or aggregation values. Only 'from simple parameters' hints that inputs are lightweight, which is not meaningful disclosure.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no padding, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficient communication — 'from simple parameters' is filler that consumes a clause without conveying information.

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 10-parameter, 7-required mutation tool with no annotations, the description is far too thin. It never explains how analysis_id, sheet_id, and dataset_identifier relate, how date_column/value_column map to axes and granularity, or what the returned chart reference looks like — even though an output schema exists, the input contract is left to the schema alone.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters (title, sheet_id, analysis_id, date_column, value_column, value_aggregation, dataset_identifier), warranting the baseline 3. However, the description adds no syntax, format, or dependency detail, and leaves format_string and show_data_labels undocumented in both places.

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 verb+resource ('Create a line chart') is unambiguous, but it largely restates the tool name and adds the empty qualifier 'from simple parameters'. It never distinguishes this tool from the many sibling chart creators (create_bar_chart, create_pie_chart, create_combo_chart, create_kpi) or explains when a line chart is the right visual choice.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must the sheet/analysis already exist), and no mention of the sibling chart-creation tools. The agent is left to infer selection entirely from the tool name.

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