pbi_arrange_visuals

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

There are no annotations, and the description does not mention side effects, reversibility, or return behavior. It does not warn that rearranging visuals may overwrite existing positions or require specific permissions. The only behavioral info is the default for visual_ids (all) and the custom map structure, which is parametric, not behavioral.

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 extremely concise, with the main purpose in the first sentence and parameter details in compact code-formatted lines. Zero wasted words.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and a mutation operation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (despite an output schema being present), doesn't state whether the tool modifies the report directly, and doesn't cover all parameters. It is minimally sufficient for simple cases but lacks depth for safe autonomous use.

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 meaning for layout (valid values), visual_ids (optional subset, default all), and custom (map format for custom layout). However, with 0% schema description coverage, it fails to explain canvas, spacing, and request_id, leaving these ambiguous. It adds some value but not comprehensive.

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 'Reorganiza los visuales de una pagina' (reorganizes the visuals of a page), which is a specific verb+resource. The mention of layout presets (grid, dashboard, executive_summary, custom) helps distinguish it from sibling tools like pbi_align_visuals and pbi_distribute_visuals.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like pbi_align_visuals, pbi_distribute_visuals, or pbi_normalize_page_layout. The description only explains parameters, not selection criteria.

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