pbi_set_visual_title

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a valuable behavioral trait: preserving the visual's format (font, color). However, it does not mention permissions, error handling, reversibility, or side effects, leaving significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential action and key behavioral guarantee. It is concise and 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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no annotations, yet the description provides no usage guidelines or parameter semantics. While an output schema exists to explain return values, the description is insufficient for an agent to reliably select and invoke this tool among many similar siblings.

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 0% description coverage for its 4 parameters, and the description adds minimal value. 'Title' is implicitly covered by the tool's purpose, but 'page', 'visual_id', and 'request_id' are not explained, so the agent must infer their roles from parameter names alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('cambia') and resource ('titulo de un visual'), clearly stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting that it preserves formatting, which is not obvious from the name alone.

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 the use case (changing a visual title) and adds a key constraint (preserving format), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. Given the large number of sibling tools, some guidance would be helpful.

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