sheets_update_chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered structurally. The description adds essentially nothing beyond them: it does not say whether unspecified fields are preserved (partial vs full replacement), whether the chart must already exist, or what happens on an invalid chart_id.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits critical context: whether updates are partial or replace the whole chart definition, what identifying requirements exist, and what the caller gets back. The annotations cover safety but cannot compensate for the missing update semantics.

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 100%, so every parameter (title, chart_id, chart_type, data_range, spreadsheet_id) is already documented in the schema, including the chart_type enum. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('updates') and resource ('an existing chart in a Google Sheets spreadsheet'), which implicitly distinguishes it from create_chart and delete_chart siblings. However, it does not explicitly name those alternatives or clarify what kind of update it performs.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The agent must infer from the name alone that this applies to modifying an existing chart rather than creating one, and there is no mention of prerequisites such as the chart already existing.

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