pbi_update_visual_position

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not disclose whether the operation is reversible, requires permissions, or how it affects the visual's existing layout. Since it's a mutation tool, more transparency would be expected.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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?

With six required parameters and no parameter semantics in the description, the tool is under-specified. The description does not clarify coordinate systems, units, or how the visual is identified, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of context.

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%. The description does not explain any of the eight parameters (x, y, width, height, page, visual_id, etc.), leaving the agent to infer their meaning from the schema alone. This is a significant gap for a tool with six required parameters.

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 'Mueve/redimensiona un visual existente' clearly states the tool moves/resizes an existing visual, which is a specific verb+resource action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pbi_set_visual_z_order (z-order) and pbi_duplicate_visual (copy) by focusing solely on position/size.

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 implies usage for moving/resizing visuals but does not mention when to use it over alternatives like pbi_align_visuals or pbi_set_visual_z_order. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative references, so the guidance is only implied.

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