tidy_slicer_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers thoroughly. It details the de-overlap algorithm (smallest clean move, near original spot, aligned, no new overlap), snap-align behavior, conservatism (only slicers move, sizes never changed), rejection of overlap-creating moves, and the note about slicer-over-non-slicer overlaps being flagged. It also explicitly states the return structure and the offline write-back with DataModel byte preservation.

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 long but densely packed with necessary operational details. It uses numbered steps (1) DE-OVERLAPS and (2) SNAP-ALIGNS, clearly marks the conservative principle, and lists the return schema. Every sentence serves a purpose: constraints, conditions, and exceptions are all covered without 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?

This is a high-complexity tool with nuanced behavior, yet the description covers every relevant aspect: preconditions (closed pbix), algorithm specifics, exclusion policies, optional flag behavior, output schema, and persistence guarantees. Without an output schema or annotations, the description self-contains all needed context, making it exceptionally complete.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'page' uses loose matching, that omitting the page tidies ALL pages, and that deOverlapNonSlicers defaults to false to avoid moving deliberate header layering. This contextualization enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'ONE-CALL conservative slicer cleanup' which clearly states the verb (cleanup), resource (slicer layout), and scope (CLOSED .pbix). It further differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing conservatism and slicer-only behavior, explicitly noting that non-slicers are never moved unless opted in.

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 strong usage context: the tool requires a closed .pbix and can tidy all pages or a single named page. It also clarifies the optional deOverlapNonSlicers flag, which changes behavior from flagging to moving. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., align_visuals) or state when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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