set_visual_border

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that show/color/radius are optional, implying that omitted parameters may be left unchanged, which is useful. It also hints that this is a convenience wrapper around set_visual_format. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, return values, or whether changes require a refresh. For a mutation tool, this is minimal but not completely opaque.

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 very short and to the point: one sentence with a parenthetical. It efficiently conveys the essence without fluff. However, it is somewhat fragmented and could benefit from a brief clarification about the 'optional' behavior, yet it still earns high marks for conciseness because every word adds value.

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?

The tool is a simple setter with no output schema and no annotations. The description provides enough to understand what it does and how it relates to set_visual_format, but it lacks critical contextual details: what is a 'visual' in this context, how the report session works, and what happens if no optional properties are provided. The absence of any error-handling or return behavior information further reduces completeness. It is adequate for a narrow tool but leaves gaps for an agent to safely invoke it without additional knowledge.

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 coverage is only 33% (color and radius have descriptions). The description adds that show/color/radius are all optional, which is helpful for understanding that any subset can be set. But it says nothing about the required parameters ('reportSessionId', 'page', 'visual'), which are critical for identifying the target visual. It also does not elaborate on the format or behavior of these fields beyond the schema. It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves the core identifiers unexplained.

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: 'Set a visual's BORDER'. It distinguishes itself from the general set_visual_format by calling itself a 'typed convenience over set_visual_format', thus telling the agent this is a specialized setter for border properties only. The optional parameters (show/color/radius) are explicitly listed, making the scope very clear.

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 usage context by referring to set_visual_format as the more general alternative: use this when you specifically want to set the border. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention other alternatives like set_visual_background. The guidance is clear enough for a focused tool but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to other visual setters.

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