set_chart_border

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not state whether the border is replaced or appended, whether the chart must exist, or any side effects. The term 'embedded object' is vague and could mislead.

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 short (one sentence) but lacks necessary detail. It is not wasteful, but it is underspecified. A single sentence can be sufficient if it covers key points, but here it omits critical information.

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 the absence of an output schema and parameter descriptions, the description should compensate by explaining expected outcomes or required context. It does not, leaving the agent with an incomplete understanding of the tool's behavior.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The description fails to explain any parameter (e.g., color format, spreadsheet_id, chart_id). It adds no value beyond the schema itself, leaving the agent without guidance on input specifics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and identifies the resource as 'embedded object's border color'. Given the tool name 'set_chart_border', it is clear it refers to chart borders, though it could be more explicit. It distinguishes the basic action from siblings but does not specify scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like update_chart or delete_chart. The description does not mention prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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