add_visual

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses important behavior about bindings format and dependency on visualType. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., requires active report session), error conditions, or return value. It adds some meaningful context but omits other behavioral aspects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and purpose, followed by a precise clarification of the bindings parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 the tool's generic nature and 9 parameters with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core binding complexity but leaves gaps around positional parameters, session/page context, and return/error behavior. It is adequate for the main use case but not fully comprehensive.

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 low (22%), so the description compensates by explaining the most complex parameter (bindings) with its JSON structure and providing examples of role names per visualType. It also repeats and enhances visualType examples. However, it does not describe positional parameters (x, y, width, height, title), though those are fairly self-explanatory.

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 verb ('Add') and resource ('any visual type') and adds the key qualifier 'with explicit role bindings'. This distinguishes it from specific sibling tools like add_chart or add_table_visual by emphasizing its generic nature and role-binding mechanism.

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 usage for any visual type and highlights role bindings, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over dedicated visual-specific tools (e.g., add_matrix, add_slicer) or provide exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than clearly contrasted with alternatives.

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