set_chart_legend

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors: default values ('Default' for legend_name), short-circuit on no input, and return format. It also lists all 12 position options. However, it does not mention permission requirements or side effects like overwriting existing legend settings.

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 packed with information, including enums, defaults, return type, and edge case. It is efficient but could be more readable by splitting into two sentences. No verbosity.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters with 0% coverage, the description covers the key parameters and return value. However, it omits context for path and chart_name, and does not mention prerequisites like being in an editing transaction (common among sibling tools). Some missing details for completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add value. It explains position options, visible's XML effect, and legend_name's default. However, path and chart_name parameters are not described beyond schema. The description partially compensates for the lack of schema annotations.

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 a chart legend with position, visibility, and name. It specifies the exact attributes and their allowed values. However, it does not differentiate from other set_chart_* sibling tools, which also modify chart properties.

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 implies usage for configuring a chart legend but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_chart_title or set_chart_axis. No when-not-to-use scenarios are provided.

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