pbi_align_visuals

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

The description adds the deterministic property (same input yields same output), which is not in annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether the operation modifies the report, or any permission requirements. Annotations are sparse but not contradicted.

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 very short and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first line. The additional notes on edge values and determinism are useful, but the brevity omits necessary parameter context.

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?

Given 4 params, no enums, no effective annotations, and 0% schema coverage, this description is under-specified. It does not explain the relationship with sibling layout tools, what happens to visual positions, or any operational context like return values or error behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters, but it only documents `edge` with valid values. `page`, `visual_ids`, and `request_id` are left unexplained, relying on inference from the tool name.

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 tool aligns multiple visuals by an edge, listing specific edge options (left, right, top, bottom, center_h, center_v). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like distribute or arrange, which have different alignment logic.

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 implies usage for edge-based alignment but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over pbi_arrange_visuals, pbi_distribute_visuals, or pbi_normalize_page_layout. No alternative tools are mentioned or exclusions provided.

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