pbi_delete_visual

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses that the operation is destructive, requires confirmation, returns the previous definition, and is recoverable via the journal. This goes well beyond a simple 'delete' and gives the agent a clear safety picture.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the key destructive requirement. It also includes recoverability information, earning its place 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 destructive operation with no annotations, the description covers the essential context—destructiveness, confirmation, return of prior definition, and restorability. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, though it could be more explicit about prerequisites or side effects.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the confirm parameter's necessity but does not clarify page, visual_id, or request_id beyond their titles. This leaves the agent to infer the purpose and format of most parameters.

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 'Elimina un visual' (deletes a visual), using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_get_visual or pbi_create_visual. The destructive nature is also emphasized.

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 the tool is for deleting a visual, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or exclude other situations. It does provide a critical usage requirement—confirm=true is required—but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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