Insert Chart

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

With no annotations, the description alone carries the critical behavioral fact that calling this tool will not work. It clearly discloses the API limitation, but it does not specify what happens if actually invoked (e.g., an error message). The statement is sufficient to prevent misuse.

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 entire description is one sentence that immediately conveys non-implementability. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the key warning, with no unnecessary words.

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 tool declared non-implementable, the description is complete in stating its unusability. It lacks alternative recommendations, but the list of sibling tools partially compensates. Given the tool's non-functionality, additional parameter or return details would be pointless.

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 description makes no reference to the five schema parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%. Since the tool is non-implementable, parameter semantics are moot, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema itself.

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 is not implementable due to a missing API endpoint, which sets expectations and distinguishes it from working sibling tools. However, it does not describe an intended function, making it more of a placeholder than a standard tool purpose.

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 explicitly says 'Not implementable', telling the agent this tool should never be used. It provides a clear when-not but does not point to any alternative tools for chart insertion, though sibling names like insert_image suggest related functionality.

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