register_custom_visual

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It discloses the exact mutation (adding to layout.config.publicCustomVisuals) and conditional staging of .pbiviz into resourcePackages. It also clarifies the guid defaulting behavior, providing a clear mental model beyond the schema.

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, purpose-first, with no filler. Every clause adds essential information about behavior or parameter meaning.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, mechanism, and key parameters. It does not mention error cases or repeated registration behavior, but the core outcome is clear. This is adequate for the tool's moderate complexity.

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 75% (reportSessionId lacks a description), so the description adds value by clarifying that name is the visualType/guid and guid defaults to name. It also explains the conditional effect of the path parameter. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('imported CUSTOM VISUAL into the report'). It explains the mechanism (adds guid to layout.config.publicCustomVisuals, stages .pbiviz) and sets it apart from generic visual-adding tools. The scope is explicit: operating on the report's custom visuals.

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 the tool is for registering custom visuals that have been imported, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like register_org_custom_visual or add_deneb_visual. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The context (report vs org) is only implicit.

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