add_anomaly_detection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds the note 'Verify the render in Desktop' which hints at a Desktop-only verification workflow, and explains parameter effects. However, it doesn't disclose whether existing anomalyDetection settings are overwritten, nor any prerequisites or error behaviors.

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?

The description is four short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds useful information without fluff.

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 5-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, key parameters, and a verification step. It lacks details on return values or edge cases, but is adequate for an add operation.

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 semantics for sensitivity ('higher = more anomalies') and explainBy ('the explanation groups by'), which go beyond the schema's short descriptions. It doesn't cover reportSessionId, but that's a session identifier.

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 the action: 'Add ANOMALY DETECTION to a line chart' and identifies the object ('the anomalyDetection object'). This distinguishes it from other add-* tools like add_analytics_line or add_moving_average, and conveys the exact resource affected.

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?

It provides context that this tool is for line charts and covers the optional sensitivity and explainBy parameters. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the purpose is clear enough to select for anomaly detection use cases.

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