set_visual_format_selector

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses it 'updates the matching selector entry in place without clobbering the default card', which is a key behavioral trait. It also explains the effect (unlocks per-series colors, etc.). It doesn't mention permissions or failure modes, but this is adequate given the detail.

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 dense but not bloated, with each sentence adding functional information. It uses a clear, structured flow, though it is somewhat technical and could be more concise.

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 complexity (8 params, no output schema), the description provides essential syntax for all key aspects, including selector formats, bucket choices, and update behavior. It lacks some edge-case details (e.g., unsupported visual types), but overall it is thorough enough for an agent to act.

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 high (88%), and the description adds important meaning for the complex parameters: it clarifies bucket values ('objects|vcObjects'), properties encoding ('encoded like set_visual_format'), and provides concrete JSON examples for selector. This goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Set a SELECTOR-SCOPED formatting entry on a visual'. It further explains the target data scopes (series, category, total/subtotal, wildcard) and the unlocked formatting capabilities, distinguishing it from generic formatting tools like set_visual_format.

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 this tool by explaining it targets selector-scoped formatting and explicitly references sibling set_visual_format for encoding. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, leaving some ambiguity.

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