chart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It notes destructive actions ('delete' is labeled 'Destructive') and mutation ('Chart creation mutates the workbook'), and marks 'list' as read-only. However, it lacks detail on side effects beyond these, such as permission requirements or what happens to existing charts during updates.

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 organized into clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises, Notes) and uses bullet points for actions, which aids readability. However, it includes unhelpful meta-commentary like 'consider documenting expected anchor and sizing units' and 'Dispatch mapping: see function source', which adds noise without value.

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 complex tool with 10 actions and 40 parameters, the description is incomplete. It covers each action's purpose but not the full parameter set, and the Notes section is weak. The output schema is mentioned but not detailed, and many parameter interactions and requirements are omitted, making it insufficient for robust agent usage.

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?

The schema has 40 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'action' parameter in depth and briefly mentions file_path, sheet_name, chart_index, data_range, chart_type, and target_cell, but the vast majority of parameters (e.g., width, height, show_value, label_position) are left to the '...' placeholder, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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 handles chart lifecycle and series/configuration operations, with a detailed list of actions ('create', 'delete', 'list', etc.) that specify exact functions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only chart-focused tool, though the umbrella phrase is somewhat broad.

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 by listing actions and their requirements (e.g., 'add_series' requires chart_index and data_range), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives. Since no sibling tools are chart-related, usage is implicitly clear, yet no explicit exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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