pbi_create_page_from_spec

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it clones existing visuals as templates, makes a backup, and auto-arranges visuals when 'position' is omitted. However, it does not disclose what happens if the page already exists or how existing content is affected, leaving some ambiguity.

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 well-structured, with the main purpose in the first sentence and a clear code block for the spec schema. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or vague content.

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 nested spec object and zero schema coverage, the description covers most necessary aspects: spec structure, cloning, backup, and layout behavior. It falls short only in explaining the 'rol:refs' field notation and how this tool relates to sibling spec-validation/preview tools, but it remains quite complete for its complexity.

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 schema is opaque for the 'spec' object (additionalProperties true, 0% description coverage), but the description fully documents its internal structure: page_name, canvas, layout enum, and visuals with type/title/fields/position. It also explains the behavioral meaning of omitting 'position', which is essential for correct use.

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 creates a complete PBIR page from a spec, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself by mentioning spec-driven creation and cloning existing visuals, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pbi_apply_page_spec or pbi_compose_page.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pbi_apply_page_spec or pbi_generate_report_page. It only describes the spec format without any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.

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