pbi_validate_generated_page

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context: checks broken references and geometry, and emphasizes deeper validation beyond mere write success. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a clear usage context. Every word earns its place with no 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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter), readOnlyHint annotation, and presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and when. It could clarify the result format, but that is likely handled by the output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. The single parameter 'page' is referenced implicitly as 'una pagina', but the description does not specify the format or how to identify the page. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory, mitigating the gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verifica') and resource ('una pagina YA escrita'), and clearly states the scope: broken references and geometry. This distinguishes it from siblings like pbi_validate_page_spec, which validates specs, and pbi_apply_page_spec, which applies specs.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'despues de aplicar un spec' to verify the result is genuinely valid, not just that writing succeeded. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the timing and intent are clear in context of sibling tools.

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