pbi_create_visual

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses notable behavior: 'Clona un visual del mismo tipo como plantilla si existe. Hace backup.' (Clones a visual of the same type as a template if it exists, backs up). This adds non-obvious context, but it does not explain other potential side effects, prerequisites, or failure modes, leaving gaps.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear opening sentence, followed by parameter definitions in code-style formatting. It adds no fluff; every line serves a purpose. The cloning and backup note is included efficiently at the end.

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 has nested objects and an output schema, so return values are handled. However, the description lacks contextual completeness in terms of when to use this tool relative to other visual-creation or duplication tools, and does not mention any dependencies or conditions (e.g., page must exist). It is adequate but not thorough for a tool with many visual-related siblings.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides concise but valuable parameter documentation for visual_type, fields, and position, including allowed values and structure examples. However, it does not explain 'page', 'title', or 'request_id', though these are relatively self-explanatory. This significantly exceeds the schema's bare type definitions.

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 starts with a clear statement: 'Crea un visual PBIR en una pagina' (Creates a PBIR visual on a page). This specifies the action (create), resource (visual), and context (on a page), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pbi_create_html_visual or pbi_duplicate_visual.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pbi_duplicate_visual or pbi_create_html_visual. The description only states what it does and provides parameter examples; it does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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