create_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 does signal a mutating operation via 'backup: Whether to create a backup before modifying the workbook,' which usefully implies the workbook is written in place. However it omits permissions, error behavior for invalid ranges, and whether the file must already exist.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args list is compact and scannable, with each line adding distinct parameter meaning. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all 8 parameters are fully covered. The remaining gap is usage/permission context for a write operation, which is modest against the otherwise thorough documentation.

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%, so the description must fully compensate, and it does: all 8 parameters are documented with real semantics, including the 'omit if only one file is configured' note for path, optional status of categories_range, and A1-style examples for the range 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a native Excel chart') and immediately enumerates the supported chart types (bar, line, pie, scatter). No sibling tool creates charts, so the resource alone distinguishes it from create_table, create_sheet, and create_workbook.

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 says nothing about when to choose this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., does the target sheet/file need to exist first?). The only guidance is embedded in parameter text, not in usage framing.

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