Create Chart

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

Annotations provide no readOnly or destructive hints, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the output format (JSON with chart name) and parameter defaults (e.g., 'None = active workbook/sheet'), which is helpful. However, it does not discuss side effects such as whether an existing chart with the same name is overwritten, whether the sheet is made active, or any prerequisites like the range needing to be valid. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 well-structured with a one-line summary, a clear Args section listing each parameter, and a Returns section. There is no redundancy or fluff—each line provides essential information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation: all parameters are defined, defaults are stated, chart types are enumerated, and the return value is described. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by documenting all 10 parameters. It explains each parameter with defaults, examples (e.g., range_address 'A1:C10', chart_type enum list), and positional arguments. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the action ('Create a chart from a range') with a specific resource (chart) and the source (range). It distinguishes itself from sibling chart tools like set_chart_type or list_charts by focusing on creation. The return value is also specified, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for creating new charts from a data range, and the parameters (workbook, sheet, range_address, chart_type) make it obvious when it applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent would naturally use this for chart creation and other tools for modification or listing. This is 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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