pbi_update_visual_position

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 only states the action (move/resize) without explaining side effects, coordinate system, units, or whether changes are reversible. This is insufficient for a mutation tool, leaving the agent unaware of potential impacts.

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 a single, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is concise and to the point, though it lacks additional detail. While under-specification is an issue, the structure itself is appropriate and not verbose.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain return values or behavior. For a tool that modifies visual positioning, more context is needed: coordinate reference, measurement units, and interaction with other visuals. The brief description leaves significant gaps in an agent's understanding of how to use it 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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain the meaning of x, y, width, height, z, page, visual_id, or request_id. The agent must infer units and coordinate origins, which is critical for precise positioning. There is no added value beyond the raw schema.

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: 'Mueve/redimensiona un visual existente' (move/resize an existing visual). This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like setting a title or duplicating a visual. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other positioning-related tools like pbi_set_visual_z_order, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Among siblings like pbi_set_visual_z_order and pbi_align_visuals, an agent would not know when this specific position update is appropriate.

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