add_tablix_filter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the new filter's index for follow-up calls and that the response includes warnings for type mismatches. However, it does not mention whether the tool requires an editing transaction, which is implied by sibling tools.

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 two sentences plus two supplementary sentences on field_format and response. It is concise, well-structured, and front-loads the main action. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose, operator constraints, optional parameter, return value, and response behavior. It does not explain the concept of a filter or the editing transaction context, but for an agent familiar with RDL, it is sufficient. Minor gaps prevent a 5.

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 low (17%), with only field_format described. The description adds meaning by explaining the operator enumeration and the purpose of field_format, but it does not provide details for essential parameters like path, tablix_name, expression, and values beyond what their names imply. The explanation partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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 action ('Append a <Filter>') and the target resource ('to a tablix'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that add other elements or perform different operations. The verb 'append' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 provides key usage constraints, such as the operator enumeration ('one of the RDL 2016 enumeration') and the optional field_format for type coercion. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_tablix_filters' or 'set_...' tools, though the purpose is clear.

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