add_svg_databar

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 behavior such as scaling to value/max, negative fill coloring, and align direction. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting an existing measure, permission requirements, or whether the measure is immediately visible in the model.

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 compact and purposeful, with four short sentences. Each sentence contributes essential information: what the tool creates, where to use it, how to configure scaling, and optional parameter behaviors. No filler or repetition.

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 a 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, placement, and key parameter semantics. It doesn't explain every parameter (e.g., width, height, fill) but relies on the schema's 90% coverage. The essential operational context is present.

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 90%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between valueMeasure and maxMeasure ('valueMeasure/maxMeasure are measure names; pass maxMeasure for a comparable scale') and clarifying effects of negativeFill and align, which goes beyond the schema entries.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Author'), resource ('SVG DATA BAR measure'), and technical detail ('DataCategory=ImageUrl', 'renders an in-cell bar scaled to value/max'). This differentiates it from sibling SVG tools like add_svg_sparkline and add_svg_gauge.

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 clear context on where to use the tool ('Drop it into a table/matrix/card') and explains parameter usage for maxMeasure, negativeFill, and align. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the context is sufficient.

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