pbi_copy_visual_format

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two non-obvious behaviors: the title text is not copied (treated as content), and cross-type copying is rejected because the format structure is not interchangeable. This is useful behavioral context beyond the simple 'copy format' operation.

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 only two sentences, both of which carry meaningful information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds constraints without any fluff.

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 covers key constraints but lacks parameter-level detail. It mentions the same-type restriction and title exclusion, but does not explain how to specify targets, what happens if targets are invalid, or what the output contains. Given the tool has 5 parameters and no parameter documentation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics. It never mentions source_page, source_visual, target_page, or target_visuals, nor how visuals/pages are identified (names, IDs, etc.). The parameter names in the schema are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no value here.

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 that the tool copies the format of one visual to other visuals of the same type ('Copia el formato de un visual a otros DEL MISMO TIPO'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like pbi_duplicate_visual (which copies the whole visual) and pbi_set_visual_title (which only sets the title).

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 provides clear context: it copies format only, not the title text, and explicitly warns that copying between different visual types is rejected. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the constraints are strong enough to guide an agent to use this tool for format replication only.

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