pbi_plan_visual

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It states "without touching the report," implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, required permissions, or rate limits. While the safety profile is hinted, it is not fully transparent.

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 well-organized with a clear purpose statement followed by a bullet list of intent keys. While every sentence is useful, the list is somewhat verbose; a slightly more concise format would achieve a perfect score.

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 output schema exists, the description adequately summarizes the return (visual_type, config, rationale) and details the input intent. However, it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an open report) or error conditions, leaving minor gaps.

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 0% coverage (no property descriptions), but the description fully compensates by listing and explaining all intent keys (metric, dimension, time, etc.), including optionality and hints. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: "Plan a visual from a business-intent spec without touching the report." It uses a specific verb (plan) and resource (visual from intent spec) and distinguishes itself from siblings like pbi_add_visual and pbi_add_visual_from_intent by emphasizing it returns a config for later addition without modifying the report.

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 usage (before adding a visual) and mentions the return includes config for pbi_add_visual, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool, such as when the visual type is already known, and does not mention alternatives like pbi_add_visual_from_intent.

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