pbi_normalize_page_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool corrects only fixable issues, respects margins, avoids moving correctly placed elements, and that dry_run=true returns the plan without writing. This provides useful behavioral insight, though it doesn't detail write side effects or prerequisites.

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 front-loaded with the main action. Each sentence provides distinct value: the core purpose, the specific corrections, the conservative principle, and the dry-run behavior. No wasted words.

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 complexity (page layout normalization) and the existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core behavior, including dry-run semantics. However, it could mention request_id or what happens when dry_run is false, though the output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 for parameter meanings. It explains dry_run clearly ('dry_run=true devuelve el plan sin escribir') and page is self-evident from context, but request_id is never mentioned. This is partial compensation, leaving a gap.

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 purpose: 'Corrige lo corregible de una pagina sin reacomodarla entera' (fix what's fixable on a page without rearranging it). It specifies the resource (a page) and the conservative approach, distinguishing it from siblings like pbi_align_visuals or pbi_normalize_report by emphasizing it doesn't move what's already fine.

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 context: use this for conservative page-level corrections without full rearrangement. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use cases, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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