pbi_create_page_from_spec

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

The description discloses two behaviors: it clones existing visuals of the same type as a template and makes a backup. However, since there are no annotations, it does not cover side effects like whether an existing page is overwritten, permission requirements, or error conditions. This leaves important behavioral gaps for a creation 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 compact and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured spec example and behavioral notes. It uses a code block for clarity. It could be more organized, but it is appropriately sized and every sentence adds value.

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 tool is complex (full-page creation with visuals, cloning, backup, layout) and the description provides a spec structure but omits prerequisites, return values, error handling, and field details like 'rol:refs'. An output schema exists, but the description itself leaves several gaps, making it only moderately complete.

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 input schema has 0% coverage, showing only a generic 'spec' object and 'request_id'. The description compensates by providing the detailed spec structure: {page_name, canvas?, layout?, visuals:[...]}, explains the 'position' field, and clarifies that omitting it triggers auto-arrangement. This fully covers the main parameter's semantics.

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 verb and resource: 'Crea una hoja (pagina) PBIR completa a partir de un spec' (creates a complete PBIR page from a spec). It specifies the input structure and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pbi_create_visual or pbi_apply_page_spec by emphasizing full-page creation and cloning of existing 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?

The description implies usage through the spec structure and mentions auto-layout via layout and position omission, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like pbi_apply_page_spec or pbi_generate_report_page. There is no 'when not to use' or direct comparison to sibling tools.

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