Update Visual Bindings

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

Description reveals 'Replaces the query state entirely' – a key behavioral trait beyond annotations. Also mentions validation behavior with strictBindings. Adds clarity about the tool's effect.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second clarifies replacement behavior, third illustrates shorthand. Efficient and well-structured.

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?

Covers main aspects: update bindings, replacement behavior, shorthand syntax. No output schema, but return values not critical. Could mention prerequisite (visual must exist) but implicit. Complete given complexity.

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?

Description explains shorthand 'Table[Column]' notation and provides an example, adding value beyond the schema's field descriptions. Schema coverage is high (80%), but the description compensates for the remaining ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update the data bindings of an existing visual' – specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from other visual manipulation tools like pbir_add_visual or pbir_change_visual_type by specifying data bindings.

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?

Description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., for changing visual type use pbir_change_visual_type). Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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