pbi_delete_visual

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it warns of destructive operation, requires explicit confirmation, states that the previous definition is returned, and mentions that the journal allows restoration. This is comprehensive for a delete operation and goes beyond basic expectations.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and includes critical safety and recovery information. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple delete operation with an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the destructive action, the confirmation requirement, the return value, and the restoration mechanism. No other critical context is missing given the tool's simplicity and available structured data.

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 has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description clarifies the crucial 'confirm' parameter by stating it must be true, which adds meaning. However, it does not explain 'page', 'visual_id', or 'request_id', though these are fairly self-explanatory from their names. It partially compensates but not fully.

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 action 'Elimina un visual' (deletes a visual), identifying the specific resource and distinguishing it from sibling tools like pbi_delete_measure and pbi_delete_page. The destructive nature is immediately highlighted.

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?

It explicitly states the tool is destructive and requires confirm=true, giving clear usage conditions. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the resource-specific 'visual' and the context of sibling delete tools make the intended use evident. No exclusions are mentioned, but the condition is useful.

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