pbi_align_visuals

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

The description adds a determinism guarantee ('Determinista: la misma entrada produce siempre la misma salida'), which is a useful behavioral note. However, with no annotations at all, it fails to disclose that this tool likely mutates visual positions, whether it overwrites existing alignment, impacts z-order, or requires visuals on the same page. This is insufficient for a layout-changing tool.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and uses a clear inline list for edge values. There is no redundancy, filler, or unnecessary detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. But the description omits critical operational context: what alignment actually does to the visuals, prerequisites, how it interacts with other layout tools, and error behavior. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It does explain the 'edge' parameter with its allowable values (left, top, etc.), which is the most complex parameter. However, it does not describe 'page', 'visual_ids', or 'request_id' at all, leaving the agent to guess their roles despite their self-explanatory names.

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's action: 'Alinea varios visuales por un borde' (align several visuals by an edge). It specifies the resource (visuals) and the operation (aligning), and even lists the possible edges. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like pbi_arrange_visuals or pbi_distribute_visuals, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pbi_arrange_visuals (arrange visuals), pbi_distribute_visuals (distribute visuals), or pbi_normalize_page_layout. It merely states what it does without providing selection criteria or exclusions.

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