add_visual

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: mutation of the analysis definition plus an automatic backup. It stops short of stating permission requirements, whether re-adding overwrites an existing visual, or failure behavior, so meaningful behavior remains undisclosed.

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 tight sentences with the warning isolated on its own line, so the destructive-by-default nature is front-loaded. Efficient and free of padding, though the warning could be slightly more precise about scope of the change.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the schema fully covers parameters. For a mutation tool the description covers the essential safety context (backup) but omits permissions and conflict/overwrite semantics, so it is nearly complete rather than fully so.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including the required dict-shape of visual_definition and the pointer to get_visual_definition. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ('Add a visual to a sheet in a QuickSight analysis'), so the action is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings that also create visuals (create_kpi, create_bar_chart, create_line_chart, add_sheet), leaving the agent to infer when the generic definition-driven path is correct.

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 when-to-use guidance and never mentions the typed siblings (create_bar_chart, create_kpi, etc.) that appear to overlap. The only actionable hint about obtaining a definition lives in the schema, not the description, so the agent gets no routing help from this text.

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