pbi_add_custom_visual

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 adds useful context: without arguments it registers 'HTML Content', which renders HTML/SVG from a DAX measure, and that Power BI Desktop downloads it from AppSource when opening the report. However, it does not disclose what happens when visual_id is provided, potential side effects, or error conditions. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the primary purpose. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds the key default behavior and downstream effect. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary 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?

The tool is relatively simple with two optional parameters and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the primary purpose and a key default behavior. However, it omits details about the meaning of visual_id and request_id, and lacks any usage guidance or prerequisites, making it not fully complete for an agent to invoke correctly in all cases.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains that with no arguments the default 'HTML Content' is registered, implying visual_id is optional. It does not explain what visual_id represents or how to specify other visuals, and request_id is entirely unexplained. This leaves significant semantic gaps for the two 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 action: 'Registra un custom visual de AppSource en el informe' (registers an AppSource custom visual in the report). It also specifies the default resource ('HTML Content') when no arguments are provided, which distinguishes it from related tools like 'pbi_create_visual' or 'pbi_create_html_visual'. The verb 'registra' and the target 'custom visual de AppSource' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pbi_create_visual' or 'pbi_create_html_visual'. It mentions the default behavior with no arguments but does not state when a user should choose this tool over another or any exclusions. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description, not explicitly stated.

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