set_column_width

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses idempotency and that setting the same width results in no save. However, it does not mention transaction requirements (e.g., if a transaction must be started first) or error behavior for invalid inputs.

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, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the action and column specification, the second adds width format and idempotency. No wasted words.

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 setter tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key parameters (column, width) well. It lacks details on path and tablix_name, and does not describe the return value shape or error cases, but is sufficient for basic 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 low (25%), but the description adds meaningful semantics for column (0-based index or textbox name) and width (RDL size with examples). It does not clarify path or tablix_name, but these are common and somewhat self-explanatory.

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 sets width on a tablix body column, a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_row_height (rows) and set_tablix_size (overall tablix) by targeting a column's width.

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 implies usage (when you need to change column width) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It mentions that column addressing mirrors set_cell_span/add_subtotal_row, giving context but not alternatives or prerequisites.

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