sync_slicer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses default behaviors (groupName falls back to field name, fieldChanges/filterChanges default true) and clearly explains the relationship between this tool and clone_visual. This is rich behavioral context beyond simple 'what it does'.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then key nuances. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, sync mechanism, defaults, and the placement caveat. No waste.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, defaults, and an essential prerequisite. It leaves no significant ambiguity about how to invoke it correctly, and the placement caveat is crucial for correct usage.

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 (83%), but the description adds meaningful context not explicit in the schema: it explains that groupName defaults to the slicer's bound field and that fieldChanges/filterChanges control what syncs with defaults. This adds value beyond the parameter 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 states a specific action ('Add a slicer to a SYNC GROUP') and the purpose ('so its field stays in sync across pages'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like add_slicer and set_slicer_selection by focusing on sync group behavior.

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 explicit usage guidance: explains that slicers sharing a groupName sync, defaults for groupName, and the critical caveat that the slicer must also be placed on each page via clone_visual. This names the alternative tool and clarifies the boundary between wiring the sync and placement.

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