Delete Chart

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

The destructiveHint annotation already signals that this operation is destructive, and the description adds some useful context by explaining that workbook and sheet default to the active ones and that the tool returns JSON confirmation. However, it does not go further to describe irreversibility, error behavior, or effects on related objects.

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 compact and well-structured with a clear one-line purpose followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds necessary information without padding 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?

For a simple three-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the essential invocation details, parameter semantics, and return format. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the 'JSON confirmation' statement, but the required-parameter inconsistency and absence of error/precondition information leave small gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full parameter documentation burden and does explain workbook, sheet, and chart_name, including default behavior for workbook and sheet. The main weakness is that the description marks chart_name as required while the schema has no required fields and a default of null, which could confuse an agent about whether it must be supplied.

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 states 'Delete a chart,' a specific verb plus resource, and the sibling list includes create_chart, list_charts, set_chart_type, and set_chart_title, making the intended operation unambiguous. The Args and Returns sections further clarify target scope without confusing it with other chart-related tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_worksheet or delete_table, nor any stated prerequisites such as the chart needing to exist. The description only states what the tool does, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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