create_pbir_page

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the side effects (creating a GUID folder and appending to pageOrder in pages.json) and specifies the return value (the new page GUID). This goes beyond minimal mutation disclosure, though it omits potential auth requirements or error behaviors.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence front-loads the primary purpose and then provides essential implementation details (GUID folder, pages.json update, return value). Every clause adds value, and there is no wasted text 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?

The tool is relatively simple with 4 parameters and no output schema, but the description compensates by clearly describing the side effects, return value, and file-level operations. It does not cover error scenarios or prerequisites like session validity, but given the tool's moderate complexity and the sparse schema, the description is largely complete for invocation.

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 only 25% (only displayName is described). The description does not explain the meaning or usage of width, height, or pbirSessionId, nor does it indicate defaults or units. With such low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but did not, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics from names alone.

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 ('Add') and resource ('a new page to a PBIR report'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like add_pbir_visual by detailing the exact file structure created (a GUID folder and pages.json update). It provides concrete implementation details that uniquely identify this tool.

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 when to use the tool (to create a new page) and notes that the returned GUID is useful for adding visuals, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like clone_page or rename_page, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage context is clear but exclusions and direct alternative guidance are absent.

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