pbi_normalize_page_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently explains the conservative behavior, specific actions (canvas boundary, margins, sizing), and the dry_run mode which returns a plan without writing. It does not mention reversibility or side effects on existing layout, but the behavioral details are strong for a layout 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: three short lines covering purpose, behavior, and a key parameter. Every sentence adds value, front-loads the core function, and avoids unnecessary fluff. Excellent for an AI agent to quickly parse.

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 has a simple parameter set and an output schema, so return values are already documented. The description covers the main purpose, behavioral constraints, and the dry_run option. It lacks prerequisites or explicit use cases, but given the tool's moderate complexity and sibling context, it is reasonably complete for selection and invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter documentation. Only dry_run is described ('dry_run=true devuelve el plan sin escribir'). The required 'page' parameter and 'request_id' are not explained, leaving ambiguity about expected format or purpose. This is a significant gap.

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 purpose: 'Corrige lo corregible de una pagina sin reacomodarla entera' (fix what can be fixed without rearranging the whole page). It lists specific corrections (bring off-canvas elements in, enlarge too-small items, respect margins) and explicitly differentiates itself as a conservative fix, distinguishing it from siblings like pbi_arrange_visuals.

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 when to use it: for conservative corrections, not full rearrangement ('sin reacomodarla entera'). It also adds an exclusion: 'NO mueve lo que ya esta bien' (doesn't move what's already fine). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or provide clear 'when not to use' scenarios, so it's slightly below full guidance.

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