set_show_items_no_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the underlying action ('Writes the projection's showAll flag'), the toggle nature, and the visual outcome. This is transparent about the side effect. It doesn't mention reversibility or required permissions, but the mutation is stated explicitly.

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 compact: two sentences, front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites and an example. Every word adds value, with no wasted phrases.

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 single-field toggle with no output schema, the description covers the necessary context: what it does, the prerequisite, and the implementation detail. It does not explain return values or error cases, but for this simple tool the description is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is high (83%), with five of six parameters described. The description adds context about the 'show' parameter by explaining the semantic effect, but does not detail each parameter. It effectively relies on the schema for parameter meaning, which is acceptable given high coverage.

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 action ('Toggle'), the target resource ('Show items with no data' for one field in a visual), and the specific behavior (categories with no rows still appear). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by precision about the field-level toggle and the projection requirement.

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 a clear precondition ('The field must already be projected on the visual') which guides when the tool can be used. It also explains the effect with an example, making the use case clear. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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