edit_visual_aggregation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the internal behavior (wrapping Column/Measure in an Aggregation function), the allowed function values with indices, and the scopedEvalBaseline flag's effect, including a caution to confirm the shape. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, permissions, or output, leaving gaps in full behavioral transparency.

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, conveying the core purpose in the first clause and packing parameter guidance into parentheticals. It is front-loaded and avoids extraneous content, though the density of technical jargon slightly affects readability. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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 six-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary operation and key parameters, but leaves out details on return values, success/failure conditions, and prerequisites. The explicit 'FLAG: confirm shape in Desktop' signals uncertainty, indicating the description is not fully complete but adequate for basic invocation.

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 83%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explicitly listing the aggregation enum values and their index mapping, clarifying the field format as 'Table.Field' (queryRef), and explaining the nuanced scopedEvalBaseline flag. This exceeds the baseline.

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 'Change the AGGREGATION applied to a field projected on a visual' – a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from related tools like set_aggregation or set_summarize_by. It further explains the underlying operation (wrapping in an Aggregation function), 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 intended usage is clear: to modify the aggregation of a field already placed on a visual. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context ('field projected on a visual') is sufficiently specific to guide the agent. The inclusion of parameter details also reinforces when this tool is appropriate.

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