register_org_custom_visual

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the underlying state change (adds to layout.config.organizationCustomVisuals), the default behavior for guid, and the staging behavior for path. It does not mention error cases or permission requirements, but for a registration tool, the disclosed traits are substantial.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by concise parameter guidance. No wasted words or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core behavior, differentiates from a key sibling, and explains parameter relationships. It falls short on reportSessionId semantics and does not mention expected return values or failure modes, but the overall picture is solid.

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 description adds semantic clarity beyond the schema: it defines 'name' as the visualType/guid, explains that guid defaults to name, and clarifies the role of the path. However, it omits any explanation of the required reportSessionId parameter, which the schema also leaves undescribed, leaving that parameter semantically unclear.

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's function: registering an organization-store custom visual and making its visualType usable. It specifies the exact mechanism (adds guid to layout.config.organizationCustomVisuals) and contrasts with the sibling register_custom_visual, 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?

Explicitly identifies when to use this tool over the alternative: 'vs the public AppSource store register_custom_visual uses.' Also notes that a .pbiviz path is rarely needed for org visuals but is staged when given, providing practical usage context.

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