pbi_copy_visual_format

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses important behaviors: same-type-only restriction and that title text is not copied. However, it does not mention overwriting semantics, permissions, or failure modes beyond type mismatch, leaving gaps 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each providing distinct useful information: the core action, the title exclusion, and the type restriction rationale. No unnecessary 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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin on parameter semantics and side effects. It does not specify what 'format' includes, how success is reported (despite having an output schema, it is not provided), or prerequisites beyond type matching. The description needs more detail to be complete.

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% and the description does not explain the parameters. It implies target_visuals must be same type as source, but it does not clarify how source_page/source_visual/target_visuals are identified or what request_id is for. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Copia') and resource ('formato de un visual a otros DEL MISMO TIPO'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like duplicate_visual or set_visual_title. It precisely states the action and scope.

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?

It states when to use (copying format between same-type visuals) and when-not (different types rejected, title not copied). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for copying titles or duplicating visuals, so it lacks the full alternative guidance for a 5.

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