pbi_plan_audit_fixes

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explicitly states 'No escribe nada' (writes nothing) and discloses that the tool returns the exact actions and reasons ('Devuelve las acciones exactas que se aplicarían, con su motivo'). This is valuable context not present in the structured annotations.

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. It front-loads the main purpose, then uses short, scannable sentences to convey constraints and parameter behavior. No unnecessary words; every sentence earns its place.

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 an output schema, so detailed return-value explanation is not needed. The description covers the essential context: what it does, that it is read-only, and parameter semantics. It could have more explicitly stated when to use this tool versus pbi_apply_audit_fixes, but given the sibling context and output 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?

Even though schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'rules' must be explicit (aligning with the schema's required flag) and 'objects' narrows down further and provides IDs of visuals or pages. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema definitions.

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: 'Planifica correcciones para reglas CONCRETAS' (plan corrections for specific rules) and explicitly distinguishes it as a planning tool that does not write ('No escribe nada'). It also mentions returning exact actions to be applied, making the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like pbi_apply_audit_fixes.

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 usage context: it emphasizes that there is no 'fix everything' and that rules must be specified explicitly, which is a key guideline. It also notes that objects narrows down the scope. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative apply tool (pbi_apply_audit_fixes) for when to actually apply changes, though 'No escribe nada' implies the contrast.

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