pbi_distribute_visuals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the minimum count and axis options, but does not mention side effects such as whether positions are permanently modified, what happens to the first/last visual, or any permission requirements. Partial disclosure only.

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 plus an inline definition of 'axis'. Every word contributes value—stating the action, the parameter, and the minimum requirement. No redundancy or filler.

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 description covers the core purpose and a key constraint (three visuals), but given it is a mutation tool, it lacks details about the distribution algorithm (e.g., are endpoints fixed?) and potential side effects. The output schema exists but does not compensate for these missing behavioral details.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains 'axis' (horizontal|vertical). The other parameters (page, visual_ids, request_id) are left to inference from their names, which is insufficient given no schema descriptions.

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). It specifies the 'axis' parameter and the specific operation, distinguishing it from siblings like align or arrange by focusing on uniform distribution.

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?

Provides a clear usage condition: requires at least three visuals, and explains behavior with two ('con dos, la separacion ya es la que hay'). This gives practical context on when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like pbi_align_visuals.

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