set_field_format

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. It doesn't disclose whether the change persists to disk, requires an open workbook, applies to a datasource vs worksheet, or is reversible. The 'clear' path is especially opaque — no indication of what value signals clearing.

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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is perhaps too terse for a mutation tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 with zero annotations, zero parameter documentation, and a mutation that affects persisted workbook state, the description leaves far too much undefined for reliable invocation.

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 schema adds nothing, and the description only echoes the two parameter concepts. It gives no format syntax (number/date/currency patterns) and never explains how to clear a format when default_format is a required parameter — a real contradiction the agent must guess at.

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 and resource: 'Set or clear a field's default Tableau display format.' This clearly distinguishes it from neighbors like set_field_geographic_role or set_field_fiscal_year_start, which touch different field attributes. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the many other set_field_* / configure_* siblings, and no prerequisites (workbook must be open? field must exist on a worksheet or datasource?). The word 'or clear' hints at a second mode but never says when or how to invoke it.

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