tidy_slicer_layout_v2

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses key traits: positions only and sizes never change, slicers-only scope, off-canvas handling, even-gap repacking, row wider than canvas is flagged not forced, offline .pbix write with DataModel byte-preserved, and the closed-file prerequisite. This is exceptional transparency for a mutation tool.

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 dense but every sentence contributes value, covering algorithm, constraints, return structure, and preconditions. It is a single structured paragraph that front-loads the main action; though long, it remains readable and avoids fluff.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates fully by detailing the return object ({ ok, rows, moveCount, moves, flaggedCount, flagged, persistedToDisk }) and explaining the complete workflow. It also covers edge cases (off-canvas, oversized rows) and exact constraints, making it self-sufficient for an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional param semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., absolute path, loose match, omit to tidy ALL pages). Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Row-aware slicer tidy (v2): cluster a page's slicers into ROWS...'), enumerating precise actions (top-align, pull off-canvas, re-pack with even-gap spacing). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'v2' and 'row-aware', and explicitly states 'slicers only (non-slicer visuals never move)'.

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?

Clear context is provided: it operates on slicers only, works on a page or all pages, and requires the .pbix to be closed in Power BI Desktop. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer this over siblings like 'tidy_slicer_layout' or 'align_visuals', so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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