pbir_move_visualMove and resize a visual on a Power BI report page, setting its position, dimensions, and z-order to control layout and overlap.
Move and/or resize a visual on a page
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| z | No | z-order | |
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| pageId | No | Page ID. Auto-resolved when only one page exists. | |
| visualId | Yes | The visual ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide only openWorldHint: false, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool mutates (move/resize), but omits potential side effects like layout impacts, permission requirements, or whether coordinates are absolute/relative. This lacks sufficient behavioral detail for safe invocation.
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 sentence, effectively communicating the core function without fluff. However, it could be slightly more structured by optionally adding usage tips without significant length increase.
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 7 parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide adequate context. It does not explain that only visualId is required, that pageId auto-resolves, or describe coordinate/unit systems, leaving significant gaps for correct tool use.
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 coverage is only 43% (only z, pageId, visualId have descriptions). The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, failing to explain x/y units, width/height meaning, or z-order semantics. With low coverage and no compensation, the agent lacks essential parameter understanding.
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 'Move and/or resize a visual on a page' clearly states the verb (move and/or resize) and resource (visual). It directly introduces the tool's functionality and distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbir_set_visual_title or pbir_delete_visual, which handle other aspects.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply it is for repositioning/resizing, there is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to other visual manipulation tools, leaving the agent without clear contextual cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.