pbi_set_visual_title

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

Annotations only provide generic hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It adds valuable behavioral context: hiding via `show=false` preserves text and format, and the old workaround left an unwanted band. This goes beyond the schema and annotations without contradicting them.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a short paragraph plus a bullet-like explanation of parameters. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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 (simple setter with nuanced hide behavior), the description covers the key aspects: operation, parameter combinations, and format preservation. It doesn't discuss errors or return values, but an output schema exists to handle return format. This is a complete enough description for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `title` and `show` in detail, including their interaction and the preservation behavior. It does not describe `page`, `visual_id`, or `request_id`, but those are self-evident from context and required fields, respectively.

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 'Cambia u oculta el titulo de un visual PRESERVANDO su formato' (changes or hides a visual's title while preserving its format). This specific verb+resource+behavior distinguishes it from siblings like pbi_set_visual_filter or pbi_update_visual_position.

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 explains the semantics of `title` and `show`, including when to pass one or both. It also explicitly contrasts with an alternative workaround (putting empty text) and explains why `show=false` is better. However, it doesn't compare against other visual-editing tools, so usage guidance is still somewhat implied rather than exhaustive.

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