pbi_validate_page_spec

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: it validates three specific aspects, reports errors with their JSON paths, and explicitly states it writes nothing ('No escribe nada'). This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the structured 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 two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core function, the second explains the error reporting format and side-effect-freeness. No redundant information or filler.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers key aspects: what is validated, error format, and that it is non-mutating. It does not mention prerequisites like having a model selected, but the sibling set includes model-selection tools, and the validation scope is clear enough.

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 input schema has zero coverage and only declares 'spec' as an object. The description helps by implying a structure via the example JSON path (`$.visuals[2].fields.values[0]`), indicating the spec contains visuals with fields. However, it does not fully describe the expected object shape, dependencies, or validation contract, so agents may still need to infer from sibling tools.

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 states a specific action (validates a spec) and enumerates the validation dimensions: schema, references against the model, and geometry. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like pbi_apply_page_spec (which applies) and pbi_preview_page_spec (which previews), and explicitly notes it writes nothing.

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 a usage context (validating before correcting errors) through 'para que se puedan corregir sin adivinar', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as pbi_validate_generated_page or pbi_diff_page_spec. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are present.

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