pbi_diff_page_spec

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool reports additions/removals/same visuals and warns when a page does not exist, but it does not explicitly state whether it modifies data or any permission requirements. The read-only nature is only implied by 'antes de aplicarlo', leaving a gap.

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?

Three concise sentences, with the main action stated first and supporting details following. Each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy, achieving excellent conciseness.

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 output schema already covers return values, so the description need not detail them. It explains key scenarios (existing vs. missing page) and what the diff reports. While it omits error cases, this is sufficient for a diff tool with simple parameters.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'page' refers to an existing page and that a non-existent page triggers a creation message, but it does not describe the structure of the 'spec' object or how pages are identified (e.g., by name or ID). This is partial compensation.

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 compares a spec against an existing page, reporting which visuals would be added, removed, and remain unchanged, and handles non-existent pages. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply or preview, as the verb 'compara' plus resource and output details make 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 phrase 'antes de aplicarlo' implies a workflow context before applying a spec, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit, making it adequate but not strong.

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