add_tooltip_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool adds projections and query Select entries, which gives insight into internal operations. However, it does not clarify whether existing tooltip fields are appended or replaced (the word 'extra' suggests append), nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or failure modes. Some transparency is provided, but significant gaps remain.

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 concise and front-loaded, with no redundant words. Each sentence adds distinct value: the core action, the fields parameter format, the internal projection behavior, and the sibling distinction. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description gives a clear understanding of the operation, input format, and a key distinction from a sibling. It does not discuss return values or error handling, but these are not critical for a mutation tool of this scope. It is reasonably complete.

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?

The schema covers 75% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds specific semantics for the 'fields' parameter, explaining the JSON structure and that 'kind' can be 'measure' or 'column', which goes beyond the schema's generic 'JSON array of {table,field,kind}'. It does not add detail for other parameters, but the fields clarification is valuable.

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 extra fields to a visual's default tooltip using a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from set_visual_tooltip_page, which swaps the whole tooltip for a report page, making the purpose 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (adding extra fields to the Tooltips field-well) and explicitly identifies one alternative (set_visual_tooltip_page) with a when-not condition. However, it does not mention other related tools like set_tooltip_field_binding or set_visual_fields, so guidance is not exhaustive.

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