pbi_set_visual_title

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key behavior—preserving the visual's format—and implies mutation via 'Cambia'. However, it omits other behavioral details such as required permissions, error handling, or reversibility, leaving the agent to infer from context. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and emphasizes the key preservation behavior. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple tool with low complexity and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: it states the main purpose and a key constraint. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it relative to other visual-editing tools and does not address prerequisites or side effects, so it is not fully complete for an agent deciding among many sibling tools.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters. While 'title' is partially explained by the description ('titulo de un visual'), 'page' and 'visual_id' are left to be inferred from their names and sibling tool conventions. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema, and the parameter semantics are under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Cambia') and resource ('titulo de un visual') and adds a distinguishing behavioral guarantee: preserving format (font, color). This clearly differentiates it from sibling visual-editing tools like pbi_set_visual_z_order or pbi_set_visual_filter, which target different aspects.

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 clear context for use: you would invoke this tool when you need to change a visual's title without affecting its existing formatting. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.

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