pbi_diff_page_spec

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

Given readOnlyHint: true, the description adds value by specifying the concrete behavioral outputs (added, leftover, same visuals) and how missing pages are handled (reports that it will be created). This exceeds the annotation baseline without contradicting it.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every sentence contributes meaningful 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?

For a diff tool, the description covers the primary behavior and outcome categories, and the existence of an output schema reduces the need to document returns. It assumes prior knowledge of what a 'page spec' is, but this is reasonable given the sibling tool ecosystem.

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 coverage, the description must clarify parameters, and it partially does: 'spec' is identified as the proposed spec, and 'page' is implied to be an existing page (or missing → creation). However, the structure of a spec is not explained, and the nature of 'page' (e.g., name vs. ID) is left vague.

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 it compares a spec against an existing page to identify added, removed, and unchanged visuals, which is a specific and distinct function from sibling tools like apply or preview. The verb 'diff' is effectively explained through the listed outputs.

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 'before applying it' provides clear usage context, implying this is a dry-run comparison preceding pbi_apply_page_spec. It does not explicitly exclude other tools or mention alternatives, but the temporal guidance is useful and clear.

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