create_visualization

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only, not open-world, not idempotent, and not destructive, which is minimal. The description adds context that the visualization is reusable and placed in the library, but it doesn't disclose what happens to existing visualizations, permissions needed, or that creating is a write action. With annotations already covering the basic traits, the description adds some value but lacks detailed behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a necessary detail about the space parameter. Every word earns its place.

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 with nested objects and an output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It doesn't describe return values, but the output schema likely covers that. It focuses on the creation location and the space parameter, which are key differentiators. However, it lacks guidance on required spec fields or common usage patterns, leaving some gaps for an agent to fill.

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?

The input schema has rich descriptions for all parameters, covering 0% schema coverage in the description itself means the schema provides all the meaning. However, the description adds minimal parameter-level information beyond the schema. It only mentions that 'space' targets a Kibana space by id, which is useful context not in the schema. Given the schema is comprehensive, the description's contribution is marginal but positive for the space parameter; still, it doesn't compensate for the overall lack of parameter guidance beyond the schema.

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 "Create a reusable visualization in the library (not on a dashboard)" with a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes it from dashboard-based creation. It clearly contrasts with sibling tools like create_dashboard and add_panel, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context by noting the visualization is placed in the library rather than a dashboard, which helps differentiate from sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_dashboard or add_panel, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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