set_chart_series_grouping

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the XML writes performed, render-time effect, mutual exclusivity of parameters, replace flag behavior, scope restriction, and return value. This is comprehensive.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and contains detailed, purposeful information. It is somewhat verbose but each sentence adds value, so it earns a high score for structure.

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?

Despite no output schema and 6 parameters, the description covers the essential behavior, constraints, and return value, making it nearly complete for an 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains group_field, group_expression, and replace, but does not explain path, chart_name, or series_name, leaving their purpose inferred. Partial compensation.

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 promotes a static ChartMember to a dynamic-fanout series, using verbs like 'Promote' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by detailing the specific grouping behavior and XML structure.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, including the effect of group_field vs group_expression, replace behavior, and scope limitation. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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