set_visual_title

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

Annotations only declare idempotentHint=true, so the description usefully adds the behavior that matters: it mutates the analysis definition and auto-creates a backup beforehand. This is real context beyond the annotations, though it omits permission/auth requirements and whether the change is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the destructive warning clearly flagged. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and all three parameters documented, the description only needs to convey the mutation and backup semantics, which it does. It could say a bit more about permissions or error behavior, but it is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so all three parameters (analysis_id, visual_id, title) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Set or update') and resource ('title of a visual'), which cleanly separates it from layout-oriented siblings like set_visual_layout and sheet operations like rename_sheet. It is clear and unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is meant to be chosen over.

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?

Usage is implied - an agent infers you call this when you want to change a visual's display title - but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer context.

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