Set Visual Interaction

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

Annotations already indicate idempotency. The description does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like side effects, error handling if visuals do not exist, or the exact effect of 'NoFilter'. Minimal behavioral context beyond the core action.

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?

Extremely concise: a single sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose and key parameter values. No extraneous information, perfectly front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is somewhat adequate. It explains the core interaction but lacks details on constraints (e.g., pageId context, validation of parameters) and behavior of each interaction type. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps.

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?

The description adds meaning by explaining that the 'type' parameter selects among three interaction modes and that source and target are visuals in a directed relationship. This goes beyond the schema, which only provides enum values and basic property names. However, not all parameters are individually elaborated.

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 clearly states that the tool sets cross-filter interaction between visuals, specifying the exact action ('Set') and the possible values ('Filter/Highlight/NoFilter'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with other visual properties or report configuration.

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?

The description implies usage for configuring how a source visual affects a target visual, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any prerequisites (e.g., visuals must exist on the same page).

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