enable_domain_completion

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the underlying mechanism (an INDEX() detail table calculation) but says nothing about which worksheet artifacts are mutated, whether existing calculations are affected, reversibility, required permissions, or side effects.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a narrowly scoped operation, though the terseness contributes to the missing usage and parameter information.

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 needn't be explained, but for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It omits when to use it, what the parameters mean, and any behavioral side effects an agent needs.

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% and none of the three parameters are described. The description never mentions worksheet_name, field_name, or ordering_type, nor their defaults ('Domain Completion Index', 'Rows'), so it adds zero meaning to the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and mechanism: it adds an INDEX() detail table calculation to trigger Tableau densification. This is more concrete than a generic 'enable' verb. However, it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as configure_worksheet_domain_range or add_calculated_field, so an agent cannot route between them from the text alone.

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 configure_worksheet_domain_range (domain range) or add_calculated_field. The phrase 'trigger Tableau densification' implies a context but never states conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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