pbi_repair_broken_references

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dual mode (diagnose vs repair), validates the destination against the model before writing, and warns about the risk of guessing. However, it does not explain the `dry_run` parameter or potential side effects on reports, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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 the second paragraph adds necessary detail about the mapping format and validation behavior. It could be slightly tighter, but it is efficient and well-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 description covers the core workflow (diagnose vs repair, mapping format, validation) but omits explanation of the `dry_run` parameter, which is critical for a write operation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the parameter gap prevents it from being fully 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?

The description explains the `mapping` parameter with a concrete example (`{"Tabla[Viejo]": "Tabla[Nuevo]"}`) and clarifies that it triggers repair mode. However, `dry_run` and `request_id` are not described, and since schema description coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Detecta referencias rotas en los visuales y las repara' (detects broken references in visuals and repairs them). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_replace_visual_field, which handles direct field replacement, while this tool targets broken references. The name reinforces the purpose.

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 explicitly explains when to use the tool and what to provide: without `mapping` it only diagnoses, with `mapping` it repairs, and it warns against autonomous guessing. This gives clear context for usage, though it does not mention alternative tools or explicit 'when not to use' scenarios.

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