Tạo chart cơ bản trong Google Sheet

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 discloses that charts are embedded directly into tabs, that stacked only applies to certain types, and that PIE accepts exactly one series. However, it does not mention potential destructive behavior, permissions, or output details.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately provides critical usage guidance on range format.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects and parameter constraints. It could mention return values (e.g., chart ID) or error handling, but it is sufficient for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 high (86%), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that ranges must include sheet names and clarifying type-specific constraints (stacked only for COLUMN/BAR/AREA, PIE one series). This goes beyond the schema.

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 it creates basic charts (COLUMN/BAR/LINE/AREA/SCATTER/PIE) from existing data and embeds them into a sheet. It distinguishes from the sibling 'sheets_create_candlestick_chart' by listing supported chart types.

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 explicitly requires ranges to include sheet names, providing a concrete usage guideline. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid using this tool, but the sibling list implies alternatives exist for candlestick charts.

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