pbi_delete_visual

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by disclosing the confirm=true requirement, the return of the previous definition, and the journal-based restore capability. These are meaningful behavioral details that help the agent understand the tool's safety and recovery mechanisms. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely concise, two sentences long, with the core action first and important constraints immediately following. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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 destructive nature, the description adequately covers the key context: what it does, the confirmation requirement, and the recovery path via journal. The presence of an output schema likely covers return value details, and annotations cover destructiveness. It could mention error conditions, but the current level is sufficient for a delete tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explicitly explains the confirm parameter ('requiere confirm=true') but does not elaborate on page, visual_id, or request_id. The parameter names are relatively self-explanatory, but the description only partially covers the parameter 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 'Elimina un visual' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (visual), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pbi_delete_bookmark and pbi_delete_page. It also adds important context about destructiveness and confirmation, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 by framing it as a destructive operation that requires confirm=true, which signals when to use it (intentional deletion with confirmation) and cautions against careless use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the context is sufficient.

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