add_to_perspective

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 the prerequisite and the optional childObject behavior, but does not mention side effects, failure modes, or return values. For a straightforward mutation, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. The action and key behaviors are stated efficiently without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a simple tool, the description covers the core behavior and prerequisite adequately. It lacks detail on sessionId and failure scenarios (e.g., perspective not existing), but these are minor gaps given the low complexity and presence of sibling tools that clarify context.

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 75% (table, perspective, childObject are described), and the description adds no new parameter semantics—it restates what the schema already says about childObject. The undocumented sessionId remains unexplained, but that is a schema gap, not the description's responsibility.

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 identifies the action ('Add') and resource ('table / column / measure / hierarchy to a perspective'), using a specific verb and object that distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_perspective (create perspective) and remove_from_perspective (remove from perspective). The scope and target are 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?

Provides a clear prerequisite ('Run add_perspective first') and explains the choice of whole table vs. child object via 'Omit childObject to include the whole table.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient for a simple operation.

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