set_hierarchy_properties

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the effect of each property: hidden toggles visibility, hideMembers accepts specific enum-like values ('Default' or 'HideBlankMembers'), and displayFolder sets a folder. The note 'any subset' indicates partial updates are possible, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or authorization requirements.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the operation ('Set hierarchy-level properties'), and it efficiently lists properties and their meanings without redundancy. Every part contributes value, and it is easy to parse.

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 straightforward setter tool, the description covers the key properties and their semantics. The schema provides parameter names and types, and the description adds the 'any subset' nuance. It does not explicitly state that the operation modifies the model or requires an existing hierarchy, but given the simplicity and clear property semantics, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use it correctly.

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 schema already describes hidden, hideMembers, and displayFolder, and the description largely restates these, adding limited new meaning. The important addition is 'any subset', which clarifies that parameters are optional and can be set independently. The required parameters (sessionId, table, hierarchy) are not explained in the description, but they are standard contextual fields. With 50% schema coverage, the description does not fully compensate for the undocumented required parameters.

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: setting hierarchy-level properties. It enumerates the specific properties (displayFolder, hidden, hideMembers) and distinguishes this from sibling tools that target other objects (e.g., set_measure_properties, set_level_properties). The verb 'Set' and the resource 'hierarchy' make 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 phrase 'hierarchy-level properties' provides clear context for when to use this tool, implying it is for hierarchy objects rather than measures, columns, or other entities. It does not mention alternatives explicitly, but the context is sufficient for an agent to disambiguate from siblings. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the scope is clear.

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