pbi_replace_visual_field

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

No annotations are present, but the description discloses failure behavior (fails if visual does not reference old_ref), validation against the model, and the field_not_found error condition. This gives the agent a clear model of what happens during execution.

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 compact, with technical details in a structured format using backticks and line breaks. Each sentence provides distinct information: main action, parameter format, behavior on missing reference, and validation/or error.

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 no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers key behavioral aspects including error handling and model validation. The output schema handles return value documentation. The only missing detail is prerequisites about page/visual existence, but that is not critical given the clear behavior described.

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?

The description explains the format and semantics of old_ref and new_ref ('Tabla[Campo]' or '[Medida]'), and the validation rules for the destination. It does not describe page, visual_id, or request_id, but these are self-explanatory from their names. Since schema coverage is 0%, this partial compensation is valuable.

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 specific verb 'Sustituye' and resource 'una referencia de campo dentro de un visual', making it distinct from sibling visual manipulation tools. No ambiguity about 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 context that it works on existing projections and does not create new roles, implying when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a direct when-to-use statement, so it falls short of a 5.

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