pbi_update_visual_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the primary effect without disclosing side effects, whether changes are applied immediately to the report, permission requirements, or how z-order interacts. This is insufficient 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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but given the tool has 8 parameters and no other context, it is under-specified. It earns its place but more content is needed to be adequately sized.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention coordinate system, whether it modifies the live report or PBIP project, the role of z, and any prerequisites or limitations. Significant gaps remain for a tool with multiple parameters and no annotations.

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?

With zero schema descriptions, the description should compensate. It implies x/y are coordinates and width/height are dimensions, but does not clarify units, coordinate system, the meaning of the optional z parameter, or request_id. Parameters like z and request_id remain unexplained.

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 action (move/resize) and the resource (existing visual), distinguishing it from create/delete/title-set tools. It is specific and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other layout tools like align, distribute, or normalize. It neither states explicit use cases nor excludes alternatives.

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