pbi_arrange_visuals

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses a default behavior (visual_ids defaults to all) and the structure of custom positioning, but it does not mention reversibility, side effects, or required permissions. This is partial transparency for a mutation 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 highly concise: two sentences plus a compact parameter reference. It front-loads the main action and uses a clear, structured format for parameter details. No unnecessary words 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?

The description conveys the core action and main parameters, but it does not explain the meaning of 'dashboard' or 'executive_summary' layouts, the 'canvas' and 'spacing' parameters, or potential side effects. Since the output schema exists, return values need not be described, but the missing parameter context leaves the description partially incomplete for a 7-parameter mutation tool.

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 adds valuable semantics for 'layout' (enumerating grid, dashboard, executive_summary, custom) and 'visual_ids' (optional subset, defaults to all) and 'custom' (map format). However, with 7 parameters and schema coverage at 0%, it fails to explain 'page', 'canvas', 'spacing', and 'request_id', leaving significant gaps.

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 function: 'Reorganiza los visuales de una pagina' (reorganizes the visuals of a page). It specifies the resource (visuals on a page) and the action (reorganize), and lists layout options. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pbi_align_visuals or pbi_distribute_visuals, so it misses full distinction.

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 by explaining layout options and the optional visual_ids subset, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., align, distribute, normalize). There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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