set_personalization

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the viewer-facing impact ('viewers can re-jig visuals for themselves') and the two toggles, but does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, or reversibility. This is moderate transparency but leaves some gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence earns its place by explaining a different scope. It is concise, clear, and free of unnecessary verbiage.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, mostly optional) and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and scope distinctions. It does not explicitly mention that reportSessionId is required or that page is required for scope=page, but those are documented in the schema, so the agent can rely on that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a toggle tool.

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 input schema already describes each parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the meaning of the settings (e.g., 'inline exploration' and 'viewers can re-jig visuals') and explicitly linking scope to the relevant parameter. This goes beyond mere schema descriptions and helps the agent understand the functional impact.

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 purpose: to turn PERSONALISATION (inline exploration) on/off. It further differentiates between report-level and page-level scopes, providing distinct actionable meanings for each. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from other set_* tools.

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 clear guidance on when to use each scope: scope=report for report-level allowInlineExploration, and scope=page for per-page personalizeVisual toggle. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope-specific instructions effectively guide the agent on usage.

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