pbi_reorder_pages

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds a non-obvious behavioral rule: unmentioned pages are moved to the end while preserving their relative order. This goes beyond what annotations provide and clarifies the side effect on the full set of pages.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence adds unique information. No redundant or filler content, making it highly concise and efficiently structured.

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 is relatively simple with 2 parameters and an output schema present. The description covers the core functionality and the most important parameter behavior. It omits explanation for 'request_id', but given the optional nature and existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 carry the burden. It clarifies that the 'order' array accepts ids or visible names, which explains the main parameter's items. However, the optional 'request_id' parameter is not mentioned, leaving its purpose unclear. 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 begins with 'Fija el orden de las paginas del informe' which clearly states a specific action (fixing/ordering) on a specific resource (report pages). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rename_page, delete_page, or duplicate_page, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains how to specify pages ('Acepta ids o nombres visibles') and the behavior of unmentioned pages ('Las paginas que no menciones quedan al final, conservando su orden relativo'). This provides clear usage context, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives.

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