pbi_update_visual_bindings

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the update behavior (without recreation), mutual exclusivity, validation against roles and field references, prototypeQuery rebuild, and dry_run behavior. It does not mention permissions, error handling, or side effects like refresh. These are minor omissions for a 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 a single paragraph that efficiently conveys key information without fluff. It front-loads the main purpose and then lists modes. While it could be slightly more concise, every sentence adds value.

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?

For a complex tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior, modes, validation, and dry-run. It mentions prototypeQuery rebuild. However, it does not explain the return value or output schema, even though an output schema exists. It also omits error scenarios. Overall, it is mostly complete but has notable gaps.

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 explains projections, add_to_role, remove_from_role, and dry_run in detail, adding meaning beyond schema types. However, it does not explain 'page', 'visual_id', 'extract_folder', or 'include_hidden'. These parameters are not self-explanatory from the schema alone, leaving gaps.

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: 'Update an existing visual's field bindings without removing and recreating it.' It specifies the verb (update), resource (visual's field bindings), and distinguishes from the alternative of removing/recreating. It further details three modes, demonstrating a precise understanding of the tool's function.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each mode ('projections', 'add_to_role', 'remove_from_role') and notes their mutual exclusivity. It also explains validation conditions. However, it lacks explicit comparisons to sibling tools like 'pbi_add_visual' or 'pbi_plan_visual', which could help agents decide between them.

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