visual_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool merges updates into a file, leaving out whether it overwrites, validates, or requires certain permissions. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single sentence, which is very concise. However, for a tool with 5 parameters and no other documentation, more structure (e.g., listing key parameters or behavior) would be beneficial. It is not overly verbose, but it lacks necessary detail.

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 5 parameters (4 required), no output schema, and no annotation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain side effects, return values, or how 'merge' works (e.g., vs replace). There are significant gaps for reliable use.

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 mentions 'raw structured updates' hinting at the 'updates' parameter, but does not explain projectPath, pageName, visualName, or dryRun. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory but ambiguous (e.g., projectPath could be a folder or file path).

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 the action ('merge raw structured updates') and the resource ('visual.json file'), which is clear and specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like visual_set_format or visual_bind_fields, but the verb 'merge' implies a bulk update distinct from individual property setters.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as visual_set_format, visual_set_position, and visual_bind_fields suggest there are more specific update tools, but no context is given for choosing this tool.

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