pbi_distribute_visuals

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

It adds a behavioral detail beyond annotations: the minimum number of visuals required for the operation to have effect. Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive, so this context is useful. It doesn't disclose side effects or error conditions, but the main behavior is covered.

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 highly concise: two short sentences with the main verb front-loaded. It includes essential details without any fluff, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the core action, axis parameter, and a critical constraint. It doesn't explain every parameter, but those are self-explanatory from names and schema defaults.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description partially compensates by explaining the `axis` parameter with 'horizontal|vertical'. It does not elaborate on `page`, `visual_ids`, or `request_id`, but those are somewhat inferable from names. The added axis semantics are helpful but incomplete.

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's function: 'Reparte visuales con separacion uniforme' (distributes visuals with uniform separation). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_align_visuals and pbi_arrange_visuals.

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 provides a key usage precondition: 'Necesita al menos tres visuales' (needs at least three visuals), explaining behavior with two visuals. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives, relying on the purpose to imply usage.

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