pbi_add_visual_from_intent

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

With no annotations, the description bears full weight for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the visual is created via a generic dispatcher with field validation and that dry_run skips layout writing. However, it omits important behaviors such as whether existing visuals are overwritten, required permissions, side effects on data sources, or error handling. This is insufficient given the lack of 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 three sentences, each providing meaningful information: the core purpose, schema reference, and dry_run behavior. It is concise without redundancy, though the structure could be improved with bullet points or clearer separation of planning vs. building steps.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema), the description is too sparse. It does not address the meaning of position/size parameters, the purpose of extract_folder, or the output format. While the output schema exists, the description still leaves many usage aspects unclear.

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 descriptions for its 9 parameters, and the description only clarifies the 'intent' and 'dry_run' parameters. The other 7 parameters (x, y, page, title, width, height, extract_folder) are left unexplained. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, making this dimension severely lacking.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Plan a visual from a business-intent spec, then build it.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'pbi_plan_visual_tool' by mentioning the same intent schema but adding the building step. The verb 'plan and build' is specific to 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 provides some usage context by noting the dry_run option and referencing the separate planning tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pbi_add_visual' or when to avoid it. Guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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