pbi_arrange_visuals

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

The description discloses that visuals are reorganized and that by default all visuals are affected, plus the custom layout format. However, with no annotations, it fails to state whether changes are destructive, permanent, require specific permissions, or how spacing/canvas affect the outcome, which is significant 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 brief and well-structured with backtick formatting for parameter explanations. It front-loads the main purpose and then lists the key params efficiently, without wasted words. It could be slightly more organized, but it earns its place.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a 7-parameter tool. It does not explain the semantics of the required 'page' parameter, how 'spacing' is applied, what 'canvas' does, or the behavior of layout presets. Given similar sibling tools, more context is needed to correctly invoke the tool.

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 adds useful semantics for three parameters (layout values, visual_ids subset, custom map structure), but it omits meaning for required 'page' and other params like 'canvas', 'spacing', and 'request_id'. The partial compensation keeps this at a mid score.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Reorganiza los visuales de una pagina') and mentions layout presets, making it clear it rearranges visuals on a page. However, it does not distinguish itself from similar sibling tools like pbi_align_visuals, pbi_distribute_visuals, or pbi_normalize_page_layout, so it lacks full differentiation.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of layout presets (grid, dashboard, executive_summary, custom) implies some use cases, but there is no stated context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the decision to the agent without support.

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