set_page_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that tooltip sets a 320x240 canvas and flags the page as a report-page tooltip, and drillthrough flags it as a target. It does not mention side effects like overwriting the current type or requiring a report session, but the key behaviors are revealed.

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, all informative and front-loaded. It states the core purpose immediately, then adds behavioral details and practical pairing advice with no redundancy.

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 simple page-type setter with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral context (canvas size, flag behavior, pairing tip). It lacks explicit information about return values or side effects, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap rather than a critical omission.

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 covers page and type but not reportSessionId (67% coverage). The description enriches the type parameter with concrete explanations of each valid value and their consequences. It adds no detail for reportSessionId, but the most meaningful parameter receives substantial semantic depth.

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 identifies the tool's function: 'Set a page's TYPE' with explicit valid values (standard, tooltip, drillthrough). It distinguishes itself from sibling page-related tools by explaining the specific effects of tooltip (320x240 canvas, report-page tooltip flag) and drillthrough (drill-through target).

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?

Provides clear usage context: explains when to use the tooltip type and instructs pairing with set_visual_tooltip_page. It also advises verifying the render in Desktop. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like set_drillthrough or add_drillthrough, so it lacks a full when/not-to-use matrix.

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