add_hierarchy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one useful constraint ('bare dimension fields'), but says nothing about whether the hierarchy persists immediately, what happens to existing hierarchies, required permissions, or error behavior for non-dimension fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, resource, and key constraint are all delivered immediately.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the definition omits prerequisites, failure modes, and where the hierarchy is created (worksheet vs. datasource). Not sufficient to call correctly with confidence.

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 coverage is 0% and both parameters are undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for 'fields' (they must be bare dimensions, and their order defines the drill order), but contributes nothing about the required 'name' parameter or its constraints.

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 ('Create') and resource ('Tableau drill hierarchy') with meaningful qualifiers ('ordered', 'from bare dimension fields') that separate it from neighboring tools like add_group and add_set. It does not explicitly name a sibling to disambiguate against, but the resource is distinct enough to identify without opening the schema.

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 indication of when to use this over add_group, add_set, or add_combined_set, and no prerequisites such as needing the dimensions to already exist or a workbook to be loaded. Usage must be inferred entirely from the verb.

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