add_card

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies creation and single-measure scope, but omits behavioral traits like whether it appends to the current page, requires a live session, or returns a visual reference. This is minimal beyond the tool name.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is easy to parse. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a 9-parameter API, so it does not achieve high marks.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and nine parameters with minimal schema docs, the description is far from complete. It omits context about required session/page/table and return behavior, leaving an agent with insufficient information to invoke correctly.

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 only 11%, and the description only reinforces that a measure is shown; it does not explain x/y/width/height/title defaults or the role of reportSessionId/pageName/table. This does not compensate for the large undocumented parameter set.

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 tool adds a KPI card and constrains it to a single measure, so the purpose is specific. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling add_kpi_card, despite the near-identical name, so it falls short of full distinction.

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?

No usage guidance is provided: no when-to-use, prerequisites (e.g., open report session, existing page/table), or alternatives such as add_kpi_card or add_visual. The description simply states the action without context.

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