edit_report_visual

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: 'Deterministic' signals idempotent/repeatable behavior, 'field-level merge' discloses that unspecified fields are preserved (non-destructive scope), and 'atomic write via temp-then-rename' reveals write safety. It stops short of disclosing permission requirements or failure/rollback behavior, but the core behavioral contract is unusually well stated.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler. Purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, followed by the two behavioral constraints (merge scope, atomic write) that matter most. Every sentence 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 complexity of 9 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description covers the essential behavioral contract (what changes, what's preserved, write safety) and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Yet the JSON parameter formatting is unresolved, and for a 9-param tool with no other documentation this leaves an agent guessing on how to supply field/format/position content.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: the field-level merge statement clarifies that omitted optional params (type, alt_text, is_hidden, fields_json, format_json, position_json) are preserved rather than reset. However, it does not explain the content or syntax of the JSON-string params (fields_json, format_json, position_json), leaving a meaningful gap for an agent constructing input.

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 a specific verb (edit) and resource (single visualContainer in a PBIR page), fenced by 'Deterministic', which correctly distinguishes it from non-editing siblings like run_refresh or deploy_to_workspace. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling or contrast criterion, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of alternatives despite 25 siblings that touch report visuals (select_visuals_for_kpis, design_report_page_from_requirements, apply_theme_and_accessibility_rules), nor any prerequisite or context on when this edit tool is the appropriate choice. The agent is left to infer applicability.

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