add_button

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool writes the actionButton visualLink and returns the new visual id, and it explains the behavior of clearAllSlicers/applyAllSlicers acting on the page's slicers. It does not cover permissions or error conditions, but for a button-creation tool, the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 appropriately sized: three sentences pack the actionType list, per-type parameter requirements, a note about slicer behavior, and the side effect/return value. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information is 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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, action-specific configuration, side effect, and return value. It omits nothing critical for adding a correctly configured button. The positional and session parameters are left to the schema, but their function is inferable.

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 beyond the schema for the conditional parameters (bookmarkName, destinationOrUrl) and explains the actionType enumeration values. However, schema description coverage is only 50%, and the description does not explain the semantics of x, y, width, height, or reportSessionId, which remain reliant on their default values and names.

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 it 'Add[s] a BUTTON with any action' and enumerates the supported actionType values, which immediately distinguishes this from generic add_visual and sibling tools like add_action_button. It also specifies the output ('Returns the new visual id') and the side effect ('Writes the actionButton visualLink'), making the function's purpose 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on which parameters are required for each actionType (bookmark needs bookmarkName, pageNavigation/drillthrough and webUrl use destinationOrUrl, others need neither), giving the agent clear instructions on configuration. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to sibling tools like add_action_button or add_nav_button, so guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is only implied via the actionType distinction.

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