pbi_replace_visual_field

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: it validates the destination against the model before writing, rejects invalid/ambiguous/wrong-type references with 'field_not_found', and fails loudly if old_ref is missing rather than silently doing nothing. This goes beyond the schema and provides agent-essential error handling 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 compact, with the main action stated first, then parameter format, then behavior on failure. Every sentence conveys necessary information without redundancy, and the code-block formatting for parameter format improves readability.

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 moderate-complexity tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential usage, parameter syntax, validation, and failure modes. It does rely on the output schema for return values, but the description alone is sufficient to know how to invoke it correctly. Minor gap: it doesn't mention any effects on the visual's data or layout, but that's beyond scope.

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 schema has no descriptions, but the description explains the format and semantics of old_ref/new_ref ('Tabla[Campo]' or '[Medida]'), clarifies that only existing projections are used, and explains validation behavior. It doesn't describe page/visual_id explicitly, but those are straightforward. Given 0% schema coverage, this adds significant value.

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 'Sustituye una referencia de campo dentro de un visual' (replaces a field reference within a visual), identifying the specific verb (replace), resource (visual), and scope (field reference). It distinguishes itself from sibling visual tools (like set_visual_title, delete_visual) by focusing on field reference replacement.

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 context that it works on existing projections and does not create new roles, implying it is for modifying existing field references rather than adding new ones. It also states it fails if old_ref is not referenced, giving a clear precondition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it's not a 5.

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