set_visual_tooltip_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions that it writes the visualTooltip property and emphasizes the prerequisite and verification step. However, it doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing tooltip settings), error behavior, or how to revert to the default tooltip.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes all essential information without redundancy. Each sentence adds value: the action, the technical detail, and the prerequisite/verification.

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 simple mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, the exact property written, the prerequisite, and a verification step. It doesn't explain failure modes or revert options, but the core usage 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 coverage is 75%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the role of tooltipPage as the target page and clarifying that page is the visual's containing page. It also ties the parameters to the visualTooltip structure with section=<tooltip page>. The one undocumented parameter (reportSessionId) is self-evident as a session identifier.

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 points a visual's hover tooltip at a report-page tooltip instead of the default data tooltip. It uses specific action terms and identifies the target resource, distinguishing it from related tools like set_tooltip_field_binding or add_tooltip_fields.

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?

It provides a clear prerequisite: the tooltip page must already be flagged with set_page_type tooltip. It also advises verifying the render in Desktop. While it doesn't explicitly list alternative tools, the 'instead of the default data tooltip' gives context on when this is appropriate.

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