pbi_set_visual_z_order

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses a non-obvious behavior: visuals not included in the order are placed on top while preserving their relative order. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but it explains the core ordering algorithm sufficiently for a mutation tool.

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, using two sentences in Spanish. It front-loads the primary purpose and then delivers critical parameter semantics. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or repetition of schema information.

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?

For a tool with three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and parameter details. It explains the non-trivial ordering rules and unmentioned visual behavior, making it sufficient for correct invocation. Minor gaps remain (e.g., page identifier format, output specifics), but the output schema likely covers return values, and the description is otherwise 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for the 'order' parameter, explaining that IDs go from lowest to highest z and that the last one ends up on top. It also explains the behavior for unmentioned visuals. However, the 'page' parameter is not further clarified beyond being a page reference, leaving ambiguity about whether it expects a name or ID.

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: 'Fija el orden Z de los visuales de una pagina' (sets the Z order of visuals on a page). It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like align/distribute/position, which handle spatial layout rather than layer stacking.

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 a clear context for use: it defines the ordering semantics (least to greatest z, last on top) and how unmentioned visuals are handled (placed on top preserving relative order). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the specificity of the task makes the usage context clear.

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