add_field_parameter

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key mechanics: passing fields as Table[Column] references, the first generated column dropping onto a slicer, and the exact table structure built. This goes beyond a simple 'create' statement, though it doesn't mention potential side effects like overwriting existing tables.

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?

Three sentences, highly information-dense, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place, explaining the use case, input format, and output structure without waste.

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 and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, input requirements, and behavioral output. It is complete enough for an agent to understand how to invoke it, though additional constraints like required fields are left to the schema.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description compensates by elaborating on the 'fields' parameter (format and usage) and the resulting table structure. It adds meaning beyond the schema for the main parameter, while sessionId remains standard with no additional need.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('FIELD PARAMETER'), and explains its function as a small calculated table that lets users swap visual fields. This clearly distinguishes it from generic tools and even from related siblings like bind_field_parameter, which focuses on binding an existing parameter.

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 the use case (allowing a user to switch which field a visual shows) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bind_field_parameter or add_whatif_parameter. Context is present but exclusions are missing.

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