Set Visual Title

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, but the description does not elaborate on idempotency, side effects, or return behavior. It merely states 'set or update' without mentioning that calling with only visualId might clear title settings or that changes are overwritten each call.

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 tight two sentences: first capturing the core action, second listing key capabilities. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every phrase earns its place—no redundancy or filler.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main function but lacks context on required parameters (only visualId is required but not emphasized), auto-resolution of pageId, or behavior of partial calls. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for effective 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?

With only 38% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially by listing text, visibility, font, size, alignment—which map to parameters title, show, fontFamily, fontSize, alignment. However, it omits titleWrap and does not clarify the auto-resolution behavior of pageId noted in the schema.

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 (Set or update) and the resource (title of a visual), and lists specific properties (text, visibility, font, size, alignment). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbir_format_visual which handles broader formatting, and pbir_set_visual_sort which deals with sorting.

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 such as pbir_format_visual. It does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and siblings.

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