add_parameter

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real value beyond the schema by flagging that the analysis definition is modified and that a backup is created automatically, which reassures the agent about recoverability. It stops short of stating the permissions required, whether the change is reversible beyond the backup, or how the parameter affects existing visuals.

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 short blocks, action statement first, warning second — zero filler and the risky detail is front-loaded where an agent will see it.

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 has an output schema and complete parameter documentation, so return values need not be explained. What remains missing is the surrounding operational context for a mutation on a live analysis definition: permission requirements and downstream effects on dependent visuals.

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 100%, and the parameter_definition field already documents the four allowed declaration types plus a full worked example, so the description adds nothing about parameters. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (parameter) scoped to a QuickSight analysis, which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling delete_parameter or explain how a parameter differs from a calculated field, which is the nearer confusion in this toolset.

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 gives no indication of when to reach for add_parameter versus add_calculated_field, add_filter_group, or the update_* siblings, and no prerequisites such as required analysis permissions or whether the analysis must be in a published/draft state. Only the mutation itself is described.

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