superset_update_chart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses partial-update behavior ('Pass only the fields you want to change') and the JSON-string requirement for params, which are non-obvious traits. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or failure modes, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence adds value. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the key usage aspects: the update action, partial-update semantics, and the params format. The only gap is the exact shape of 'params,' but the reference to create_chart is a reasonable shortcut. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a tool with this complexity.

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 compensate. It explains that 'params' must be a JSON string with the same shape as for create_chart, which is helpful for the most ambiguous parameter. However, it does not detail the JSON structure or clarify 'slice_name' and 'description' beyond their self-evident names.

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 begins with 'Update an existing chart,' which clearly states the action (update) and resource (chart). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like superset_create_chart and superset_delete_chart, and the tool name reinforces the 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?

'Pass only the fields you want to change' gives explicit guidance for partial updates, and the reference to 'same shape as for create_chart' implies when to use create vs. update. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternatives beyond the create_chart reference.

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