pbi_set_visual_z_order

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical non-obvious behavior: visuals not listed in the order are placed on top while preserving their relative order. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent important expectations about the tool's effect, although it does not mention permissions or reversibility.

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 front-loaded. The main purpose is stated in the first sentence, and the second sentence efficiently explains the ordering behavior. No redundant or unnecessary words are present, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool's relative simplicity (three parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: what the tool does and how the main parameter works. It could be more complete by explaining the 'page' parameter or noting any side effects, but for a layout operation it provides sufficient guidance.

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. It thoroughly explains the 'order' parameter, including directionality and the behavior of unlisted items. However, it does not describe 'page' (required) or 'request_id', leaving those semantics to inference. The explanation of the critical parameter adds significant value, but the missing coverage for other parameters keeps this score moderate.

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: 'Fija el orden Z de los visuales de una pagina' (sets the Z-order of visuals on a page). This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pbi_arrange_visuals or pbi_update_visual_position, which deal with spatial positioning rather than stacking order.

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 clear context on how to use the tool by explaining the ordering semantics: order ids from lowest to highest Z, with the last one on top, and unmentioned visuals placed above. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is unambiguous and helpful for correct invocation.

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