pbi_distribute_visuals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a behavioral edge case (with two visuals, no change occurs) and defines `axis` values, but it does not state that the tool modifies visual positions, what exactly 'separacion uniforme' implies (e.g., equal gaps), whether it respects page boundaries, or whether it is destructive. This is partial disclosure, leaving significant behavioral context unstated.

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 only two short sentences. It front-loads the core action and immediately covers the `axis` parameter, then adds a useful caveat about the minimum number of visuals. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition or filler.

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?

This is a layout-mutation tool with no annotations, a sparse schema, and a minimal description. It provides the three-visual minimum and axis values but lacks essential operational context: what visual_ids represents, what page is needed, what side effects occur (e.g., position changes), and how it differs from sibling layout tools. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these gaps, making the tool under-specified for an agent to use confidently.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains `axis` with allowed values ('horizontal|vertical'), but the other three parameters (page, visual_ids, request_id) are not addressed. Critically, visual_ids—the list of visuals to be distributed—is left unexplained, making it hard for an agent to know what to pass. The description only adds value for one of four 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 the tool's function: 'Reparte visuales con separacion uniforme' (distributes visuals with uniform separation), which is a specific verb+resource pair with a clear outcome. It also explains the `axis` parameter, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like pbi_align_visuals or pbi_arrange_visuals, so it falls short of 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?

The description provides a clear prerequisite: 'Necesita al menos tres visuales: con dos, la separacion ya es la que hay' (needs at least three visuals; with two, the separation is already the existing one). This tells the user when the tool has no effect, but it does not mention alternative tools or when to prefer this over align/arrange. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted.

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