pbi_duplicate_visual

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and discloses meaningful behaviors: preservation of fields/format/filters, regeneration of a unique identifier, and offset placement to avoid overlap. However, it omits potential side effects, error conditions, or permission requirements.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses three focused sentences to explain behavior and key parameters. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool has 7 parameters and an output schema, yet no annotations. The description explains the main duplication behavior and a few parameters but omits details like return values, error handling, and the effect of new_title when null. It covers essentials but leaves gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains offset_x/offset_y and target_page, but leaves new_title, request_id, page, and visual_id without added meaning beyond schema titles, especially ambiguous ones like request_id and new_title's default behavior.

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 duplicates a visual while preserving its fields, format, and filters, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pbi_duplicate_page or pbi_copy_visual_format by focusing on full visual duplication.

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 implies usage by defining the tool's behavior but does not explicitly compare to alternatives such as pbi_copy_visual_format or pbi_create_visual. It mentions the target_page option for copying to another page, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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