pbi_compose_page

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

The description discloses that the tool writes (unless dry_run=true), that the server decides geometry, that text color comes from the report theme (not the system), that the composition order is fixed for coherence, and that it warns if content doesn't fit. It also explains the dry_run behavior and that it follows the same validation/transaction as pbi_apply_page_spec. This goes far beyond the minimal annotations, which provide no read-only or idempotency guarantees.

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-organized with a clear introductory sentence, bullet-style explanations of each parameter, and a short rationale for design decisions. It is moderately long but every section adds value. The structure aids readability and front-loads the main purpose before diving into details.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core behaviors and parameter semantics. It explains dry_run's return value and the fixed composition order, but doesn't describe the non-dry-run response in detail. However, the output schema likely fills that 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?

Despite the 0% schema description coverage, the description thoroughly explains the meaning and expected structure of key parameters: title/subtitle, kpis, hero, supports, and detail, providing example JSON formats. It also describes dry_run's purpose. The only parameters not explicitly described are system, page_name, and request_id, but these are likely straightforward or auxiliary.

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 'Compone una pagina entera sobre la rejilla del sistema de diseno' (composes an entire page on the design system grid) and explains the intention-driven approach. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_apply_page_spec (which applies an explicit spec) and pbi_create_page_from_spec (which creates from a specific spec), as it focuses on high-level page composition with automatic geometry.

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 conveys when to use this tool: when you want to compose a page by describing intention and letting the server decide geometry. It mentions dry_run for preview without writing and references pbi_apply_page_spec for validation/transaction path, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it.

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