pbi_set_visual_z_order

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

The description discloses important behavioral details: the `order` array should be sorted from lowest to highest Z, the last item ends up on top, and unmentioned visuals are placed above while preserving their relative order. This goes beyond the sparse annotations (all false) and explains the tool's non-obvious behavior. No contradictions with 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 with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and then explaining the key parameter. Every sentence provides value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: it defines the Z-order behavior and handles edge cases (unmentioned visuals). An output schema exists, so return values don't need description. Missing minor details like page identifier format or error handling, but these are not critical for a simple reordering operation.

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 adds essential semantics for the `order` parameter, explaining it expects visual IDs and how the ordering interpretation works (lowest to highest Z, last is on top, unlisted visuals go above). This compensates for zero schema parameter descriptions, though `page` and `request_id` remain unexplained. The main parameter's meaning is significantly clarified.

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 sets the Z order of visuals on a page ('Fija el orden Z de los visuales de una pagina'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pbi_arrange_visuals or pbi_align_visuals by focusing specifically on layer ordering.

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 does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when to use it versus other layout tools. However, the tool name and introductory sentence make the use case clear (changing Z-order), so usage is implied. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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