set_chart_title

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

With no annotations, the description explains that text can be literal or an expression, and title_name defaults to 'Default' as the only title emitted. However, it lacks information on permissions, reversibility, or error behavior, partially informing but not fully 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 very concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and key details without redundancy.

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 or annotations, the description fails to explain all parameters (path, chart_name), elaborate on return fields (chart, title, kind, changed), or mention error handling or preconditions. Significant information gaps remain.

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 explain all parameters. It only adds meaning for 'text' (literal or expression) and 'title_name' (default and uniqueness). The required parameters 'path' and 'chart_name' are not described, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 updates a chart title or caption, with specific details about text types and title_name default. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_chart_axis or set_chart_legend.

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 context about title_name and expression support, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Usage is implied but not contrasted with siblings.

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