add_svg_chip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: auto-sizing width, textMeasure provides the label, optional colorMeasure supplies fill, defaultFill fallback. This goes beyond the schema by explaining how the visual behaves. However, it omits side effects like overwriting or error handling, so not a 5.

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 one compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and packs in the essential parameter mapping. Every clause adds value; no 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?

The tool has 7 params, no annotations, and no output schema. The description explains the visual output but omits the creation context (adding a measure to the model), potential conflicts, return behavior, and prerequisites. It's insufficient for an agent to fully understand what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 57%. The description reiterates the schema descriptions for textMeasure/colorMeasure/defaultFill but provides no help for required params like name, table, and sessionId. It doesn't explain their roles, so it doesn't compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Author an SVG CHIP/PILL measure,' which uses a specific verb and resource, and clarifies the DataCategory. It contrasts with sibling SVG tools (sparkline, gauge, etc.) by explicitly naming 'CHIP/PILL' and the auto-sizing label behavior.

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 (creating a chip/pill label) and explains the text/color parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternative SVG tools or any prerequisites/exclusions. It provides context but not explicit guidance.

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