set_visual_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it preserves position, formatting, conditional formatting, and clears sort—an important side-effect. It also explains the bindings format and role mappings by visual type, which is rich behavioral 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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value—including the bindings format, role details, and the sort side-effect with a pointer to a sibling 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?

Given the moderate complexity (JSON bindings, multiple visual types, side-effect), the description is complete: it explains roles for table/card, matrix/pivotTable, and charts, and warns about sort clearing. No output schema exists, but the tool's action is straightforward and fully described.

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 only describes 'bindings' (25% coverage). The description significantly enhances this parameter by defining it as a JSON array of {role,table,field,kind} and detailing role names per visual type. The other parameters (pageName, visualName, reportSessionId) are self-explanatory and need no extra explanation.

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 verb 'Replace' and the resource 'field bindings of an EXISTING visual', and distinguishes from siblings like delete_visual and change_visual_type by emphasizing that it does NOT delete the visual and preserves formatting and 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?

It provides clear usage context: use for existing visuals when you want to change fields without deleting, and it explicitly notes that sort is cleared and suggests re-applying with set_visual_sort. However, it does not explicitly contrast with bulk_bind_visuals or other alternatives for bulk operations.

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