pbi_create_page_from_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides useful specifics: 'Clona visuales existentes del mismo tipo como plantilla', 'Hace backup', and explains that omitting 'position' lets the visual auto-arrange based on 'layout'. This goes beyond the tool name, though it lacks details on overwrite behavior or permissions.

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 compact and information-dense: a one-line purpose, a code-block spec shape, and two behavior side-notes. Every sentence contributes, there is no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with a nested spec object and no annotations, and the description does cover the spec structure and key side effects (clone, backup, auto-layout). However, it doesn't mention how to choose this over related page-spec tools, lacks error/prerequisite context, and the semantics of fields/refs is under-specified. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return-type documentation, so the description is adequate but not fully 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?

The schema offers almost no parameter documentation (0% coverage, spec is additionalProperties), so the description compensates with a detailed inline spec: page_name, canvas?, layout?, visuals with type/title/fields/position. It also clarifies a key behavior ('Omite position... auto-acomode'). Slight ambiguity in 'rol:refs' and no full example prevent a 5.

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 it creates a complete PBIR page from a spec: 'Crea una hoja (pagina) PBIR completa a partir de un spec.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the inline spec summarized with layout types (grid|dashboard|executive_summary) and visual structure distinguishes it from generic page tools.

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 when you have a structured spec and want a fully fleshed-out page, and notes cloning/backup behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly explain when to use this tool over siblings like pbi_apply_page_spec, pbi_compose_page, or pbi_generate_page_spec, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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