pbi_normalize_page_layout

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining the tool's conservative approach ('NO mueve lo que ya esta bien') and by disclosing the dry-run behavior ('dry_run=true devuelve el plan sin escribir'). It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and it adds useful context about what the tool actually does during execution.

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 main purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It uses a short opening sentence, followed by detailed behavior and the dry-run note, with no redundant or filler text.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the tool's scope, key behaviors, and the dry-run option. It could mention prerequisites or side effects, but for a layout normalization tool with these annotations and schema, it is reasonably complete.

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 explains the 'dry_run' parameter's semantics ('devuelve el plan sin escribir'). The 'page' parameter is self-explanatory, but 'request_id' is not explained at all. Partial compensation for parameter clarity.

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: to fix fixable issues on a page without rearranging it entirely. It lists specific actions (brings into canvas, resizes too small, respects margins) and explicitly distinguishes itself as a conservative correction, which differentiates it from sibling tools like pbi_arrange_visuals or pbi_align_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 implies usage for pages with minor layout issues that need conservative fixing, and it mentions not moving elements that are already fine. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or direct comparisons to sibling tools. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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