set_chart_data_labels

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses important behavioral details: mutual exclusivity between visible and visible_expression, that format accepts '' to clear, the list of valid position values, and the return value. This provides sufficient transparency beyond the schema.

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 moderately lengthy but well-structured, starting with the main purpose and then detailing parameter behaviors. It uses clear language and bullet-like enumeration for version-specific additions. Minor redundancy in listing position values could be trimmed.

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 complexity (10 parameters, mutual exclusivity, clearing behavior) and lack of output schema, the description covers return value and key behaviors comprehensively. It provides version context and explains how to clear format, though it omits handling of some less common parameters like visible_expression beyond mutual exclusivity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning for most parameters: visible/visible_expression mutual exclusivity, format clearing, position enum values, use_value_as_label boolean, and font_weight/color writing to Style elements. Some parameters like path, chart_name, and series_name lack elaboration, but schema provides type info.

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 tool's purpose: configure ChartDataLabel on one or all series in a chart. It distinguishes behavior based on series_name (None applies to all, named applies to that series) and lists key parameters, effectively differentiating it from sibling tools like set_chart_series_type or set_chart_title.

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 explains the logic for applying to all or one series but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of comparative context leaves room for ambiguity.

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