Publish Chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, idempotent mutation. The description adds the consequential detail that publishing makes the chart 'publicly accessible', which is meaningful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not cover reversibility (can it be unpublished?), permission requirements, or what the preview response contains. Gaps remain but the key effect is disclosed.

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 core content (purpose + usage warning) is tight and front-loaded after a distracting two-line banner. The '⚠️ DATAWRAPPER MCP TOOL ⚠️' header and horizontal rule add no semantic value and consume prime real estate. The useful sentences themselves are efficient.

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 simple 2-parameter publish tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, the critical usage constraint, and the public-accessibility effect. Minor gap: it doesn't mention how to undo publishing or what happens on repeated calls (though idempotentHint covers the latter).

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (chart_id and access_token) are fully documented in the schema itself, including the fallback behavior for the token. The description adds no parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully carries parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Publish a Datawrapper chart to make it publicly accessible and render a preview in chat.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_chart or update_chart. The surrounding banner header ('⚠️ DATAWRAPPER MCP TOOL ⚠️') is noise but does not obscure the core 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Only use this tool when the user explicitly requests to publish the chart. Do not automatically publish charts after creation unless specifically asked.' This is a rare, precise when/when-not directive that directly prevents a common failure mode (premature publishing).

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