pbi_align_visuals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds a determinism guarantee ('Determinista: la misma entrada produce siempre la misma salida'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose that this is a mutating operation, whether it replaces existing positions, or any side effects, so transparency remains limited.

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 extremely concise, with two clear sentences. The edge values are presented in a structured inline list, and there is no filler or repetition. It earns its place by delivering the core purpose and a behavioral guarantee without bloat.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits usage guidance, parameter details for most arguments, and any context on how alignment affects the page. The determinism note is nice, but it does not compensate for the missing operational context, making the tool under-specified for reliable selection and 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains only the 'edge' parameter with valid values, while page, visual_ids, and request_id are left to inference. The alignment action implies visual_ids gives targets, but the lack of explicit semantics for three of four parameters is a significant gap.

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 a specific action: 'Alinea varios visuales por un borde' (aligns multiple visuals by an edge). It includes a concise list of valid edge values, which differentiates it from sibling tools like distribute_visuals or arrange_visuals that handle other layout operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pbi_arrange_visuals or pbi_distribute_visuals. There is no mention of prerequisites, edge cases, or contexts where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to guess which layout tool fits.

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