change_visual_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains side effects: deprecated aliases are modernised, role remapping rules are specified (same-named roles carry over, others fall to first compatible role, overflow is reported), data-formatting cards not declared are dropped and reported, chrome always survives, and sort is cleared. This is exceptional transparency for a complex mutation tool.

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 multi-sentence but every sentence contributes meaningful detail for a complex operation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers important details. There is no fluff or redundancy, and the length is justified by the complexity of the tool.

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 is complex with many side effects, and the description covers them comprehensively: what is preserved, what is dropped and reported, what is cleared, and how to re-apply sort. Since no output schema is expected, return values are not needed. The description is complete for an agent to understand the full scope of the operation.

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 already provides good descriptions for newType including deprecated aliases, so the description does not need to add much there. It adds behavioral context around how parameters are interpreted (e.g., type modernisation, role remapping), but does not significantly elaborate individual parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. With 75% schema description coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb 'Change' and resource 'visual's TYPE', clearly stating the core function. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_visual_format and set_visual_property by explicitly mentioning preservation of data bindings, position, and applicable formatting, and by detailing deprecated mapping behavior. This makes the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 that this tool is for retyping visuals while preserving certain attributes, and it even directs users to re-apply sort with set_visual_sort after use. It also references list_visual_data_roles for role remapping, giving auxiliary guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not to use it, but the context is sufficient to infer proper usage.

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