pbi_diff_page_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It clearly discloses that the tool is non-destructive (comparison only), what it reports (added/leftover/unchanged visuals), and how it handles a missing page. This provides complete transparency for an agent to predict tool behavior.

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 concise (three short sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: what the tool does, what it reports, and edge-case behavior. No wasted words.

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?

Given the simple tool, the description covers the essential behavior and edge case. An output schema exists, so not detailing return values is acceptable. It could mention the format of 'page' or 'spec' but is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify parameters. It implicitly defines 'spec' as the new specification and 'page' as the existing page, but doesn't explain the spec structure or page identifier format. The default null for page is not addressed, leaving some ambiguity.

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 the tool's function: comparing a spec against an existing page before applying it. It specifies the outputs (added visuals, leftover visuals, count unchanged) and the behavior for non-existent pages, distinguishing it from sibling tools like apply or validate.

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 phrase 'before applying it' implies usage as a pre-application check, distinguishing it from pbi_apply_page_spec. It provides context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions. The edge case of a missing page is addressed, giving practical guidance.

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