set_totals

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does specify that the tool works on tables and matrices and differentiates totals from subtotals, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects, persistence, or reversibility, though the toggle nature implies reversibility.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundancy, every word contributes to the core meaning.

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 4 parameters and no schema descriptions or annotations, the description is too sparse to allow an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It does not clarify that the operation applies to a specific visual identified by visualName and pageName, nor does it explain the role of the boolean 'show' parameter. The output schema is absent, so return behavior is also unaddressed.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. It does not explain what 'show' means, how visualName and pageName relate to the target visual, or what reportSessionId is for. The description adds no value beyond the parameter names in the schema.

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 ('Show/hide') and the resource ('totals on a table and subtotals on a matrix'). It also distinguishes between table and matrix, which is specific enough to differentiate from sibling tools that deal with other visual properties.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to toggle totals/subtotals on a table or matrix), but it does not explicitly state conditions for use or mention alternatives. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implicit target types.

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