set_drillthrough_fields

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it fully discloses key behaviors: each field becomes a drill-through filter, keepAllFilters toggles a switch, and 'Replaces any existing drill-through fields' explicitly signals the destructive/replacement nature. This goes beyond the schema and provides critical expectations.

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?

Three sentences, each dense with meaningful information. The structure is front-loaded with purpose, then details parameters, and ends with pairing guidance. No fluff or redundant restating of the name or schema.

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 params and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does, how it interacts with page, fields, keepAllFilters, and how it fits with sibling tools. It covers replacement behavior, filter application, and usage pairing, making invocation unambiguous. No significant gaps.

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%, slightly below the high threshold. The description enriches parameter understanding: it clarifies the 'fields' JSON structure as '{table,field}' and explains its filter effect, and defines keepAllFilters behavior. It adds value beyond the schema descriptions without fully covering reportSessionId, but that is a common session context.

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 uses a specific verb ('Wire') and clearly identifies the resource ('CARRIED FIELDS of a DRILL-THROUGH page'). It explains the mechanism (fields become page filters) and distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly pairing it with set_page_type drillthrough / add_drillthrough.

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 provides effective usage context: 'Pair with set_page_type drillthrough / add_drillthrough' indicates complementary tools and when this is appropriate. It lacks explicit alternatives or 'when not to use', but the pairing guidance and clear semantics offer sufficient direction.

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