update_chart

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'replace' without disclosing behavior such as whether the spec is fully replaced or merged, required permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured or include a brief note on parameters without becoming verbose.

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 three required parameters, a nested object, and no output schema or annotations, the description fails to provide enough context. An agent would lack guidance on constructing the chart_spec or understanding the operation's return value.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters (chart_id, chart_spec, spreadsheet_id). It only loosely mentions 'chart's spec' but does not explain what the spec object should contain or how to use the other required parameters.

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 explicitly states 'Replace a chart's spec' with a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from move_chart, guiding the agent away from using this tool for move/resize operations.

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 a clear alternative tool (move_chart) for moving or resizing, but lacks explicit when-to-use/not-use context for other sibling tools like create_chart_from_spec or delete_chart.

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