set_data_bars

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses parameter behaviors (reverseDirection, hideText, axisColor, minValue/maxValue) and even notes a bug fix for the min==max case. It does not cover side effects or reversibility, but provides substantial behavioral detail.

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 concisely structured: first sentence gives the primary purpose, second sentence lists parameter behaviors, and a final practical tip to verify in Desktop. Every sentence is informative 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?

The description covers the main behavior and parameter effects, and the tip to verify in Desktop adds practical context. However, it does not explain prerequisites like needing an open session or how to locate the visual, though these are partially covered by the schema parameter descriptions.

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 high (92%), so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining how each parameter affects the visual (e.g., bars right-to-left, bar-only display, zero-axis colour) and the min/max bug fix, which is beyond the schema's default/type info.

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 it adds data bars to a measure column in a table/matrix, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like add_svg_databar, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 context (for table/matrix visuals with measure columns) but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over similar bar-formatting tools.

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