update_visual_property

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool writes back to the file while preserving the DataModel, creates missing objects/arrays along the path, explains valueKind semantics in detail, and notes the return of before/after values. It also states the requirement that the .pbix be closed, which is a critical behavioral constraint.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and then systematically covering visual lookup, property path, valueKind, return value, and usage constraint. Every sentence adds value, though the length is slightly high. It remains easy to scan due to logical ordering.

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 (6 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, how to locate visuals, how to set values with all valueKind options, what it returns, and a critical prerequisite (.pbix closed). This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly in most scenarios.

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?

Even though the schema has 100% parameter descriptions, the description adds substantial meaning. It explains property_path with concrete examples, clarifies valueKind behaviors (auto parse vs. wrapping as literal expressions), and details visualIdOrTitle options (config name, displayName, visible TITLE, bound field). This goes well beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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's purpose: 'open a CLOSED .pbix, set ANY property at a JSON path UNDER a visual's singleVisual config, then write the .pbix back'. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from siblings like set_visual_title or set_visual_format. The 'GENERAL' prefix emphasizes its role as a general-purpose fallback.

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 for use: offline editing of a closed .pbix, visual location methods, and explicit constraint that the .pbix must NOT be open in Power BI Desktop. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., set_visual_property) or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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