Set Chart Type

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

With no safety annotations beyond a title, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does say the tool changes a chart's type and returns JSON confirmation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose that the existing type is overwritten, whether the chart must already exist, or potential side effects on chart series.

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, well-organized, and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is minimal and each line adds necessary information. There is no filler or redundant text.

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?

The description covers parameter semantics, valid chart type values, active defaults, and the return format. It lacks guidance on how to find chart_name or what happens when a chart is not found, but for a straightforward chart modifier this is reasonably complete.

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%, but the description fully documents all four parameters: workbook and sheet with active defaults, chart_name as required, and chart_type with all accepted values. This provides essential meaning that the input schema itself lacks.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Change a chart's type.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool set_chart_title, which changes a different property. The verb 'change' and noun 'chart type' make the tool's purpose immediately identifiable.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_chart_title, create_chart, or list_charts. It explains defaults for workbook and sheet, but does not state when this tool is appropriate or what prerequisites exist.

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