pbi_apply_page_spec

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

The description contradicts the annotations: destructiveHint=false, yet sync_mode=replace 'ademas elimina los visuales ausentes' (deletes absent visuals). This is a direct conflict, forcing a score of 1 per the contradiction rule, despite otherwise rich disclosure of outcomes, id preservation, and dry_run semantics.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: core purpose first, then outcomes, then per-parameter explanations. Each sentence adds necessary information; the formatting with backticks and line breaks improves readability without bloat.

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 complex tool, the description covers outcomes, parameter behaviors, interaction referencing/types, and dry_run. It omits seed and request_id, and the spec object's schema is not detailed, but the presence of an output schema reduces the burden for return-value explanations. Overall strong, with minor gaps.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining page (id/name, defaults), sync_mode (merge vs replace, conservative default), interactions (referencing by position/id/title, types), and dry_run (plan_token, no write). However, seed and request_id are not mentioned, and spec's full structure is only partially addressed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Materializa el spec como una pagina PBIR, en UNA transaccion.' It clearly distinguishes the tool's role as the writer (apply) versus preview/validate siblings, and enumerates four explicit outcomes (create, update, no_change, conflict).

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 gives clear context: it applies a page spec transactionally, with dry_run as a safe planning mode, and explicitly mentions pbi_apply_plan as a follow-up. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, but the usage context is well-defined.

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