configure_custom_tooltip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing: not whether the tooltip replaces or appends existing content, what a 'run' entails, permission needs, or reversibility. It only vaguely names the payload types.

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?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is structurally fine. However, the brevity comes at the cost of comprehensibility, so it is terse rather than efficiently informative.

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 no-annotation mutation tool with three parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves almost everything an agent needs unstated: parameter meanings, side effects, and prerequisites. An output schema exists so return values are excused, but the input/behavioral gaps are severe.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely gestures at 'runs' and mentions a non-existent 'filter_fields'. Required parameters 'worksheet_name' and optional 'pane_index' are never explained, leaving their meaning to guesswork.

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 verb 'Set' and the implied resource (a custom tooltip's runs/sheets) are present, so it is not pure tautology, but the description never says it configures a tooltip and instead leans on jargon like 'field runs' and 'embedded sheets'. It references 'filter_fields', which is not even a parameter, creating confusion rather than clarity.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or how it differs from the closely named sibling configure_custom_label. The agent is given no routing guidance.

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