pbi_generate_page_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates the output is a draft ('borrador') and editable, implying no direct mutation, but it does not explicitly say whether it modifies anything or what side effects exist. The mention of validation adds context but not full transparency.

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 and well-structured: a single opening sentence, a compact list of key parameters, and a clear follow-up instruction. Every part earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 output schema exists (covering return values) and the tool is a generator, the description covers the main workflow and key parameters. It lacks explicit mention of `page_name` and width/height, but those are straightforward. Overall it is sufficiently complete for the task.

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 does explain `preset`, `measures`, and `category` with meaningful detail, but it omits `page_name` (a required parameter) and leaves `width`/`height` to be inferred from schema names. Partial compensation but not complete.

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 generates a draft spec from a preset and fields, with a specific verb and resource ('Genera un borrador de spec'). It differentiates from validation/apply tools by explicitly mentioning the follow-up validation step, but does not distinguish itself from the similarly named pbi_generate_report_page.

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 clear context: it is for generating an editable spec draft, and it instructs the user to review it and pass it through pbi_validate_page_spec. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the workflow guidance is useful.

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