pbi_add_image_resource

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only action, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: the file is copied to StaticResources, report.json is modified, and a missing declaration causes a blank visual with no error. It also explains the return value. This goes beyond the structured metadata and enhances 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 concise and well-structured: it front-loads the purpose, explains the mechanism and failure mode, then describes the return value and the only parameter it documents. Every sentence contributes essential information with no redundancy.

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 description covers the core purpose, the critical mechanism, the failure mode, and the return value, making it usable for the primary workflow. However, given that schema coverage is 0%, the lack of explanation for `name`, `overwrite`, and `request_id` is a notable gap. The tool is simple enough to be used despite this, but completeness is only average.

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 no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only explicitly documents `path` (with allowed extensions .png .jpg .gif .bmp .svg). It indirectly mentions the return `item_name`, which may relate to `name`, but `name`, `overwrite`, and `request_id` remain unexplained, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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: 'Incrusta una imagen en el informe' (embeds an image in the report). It specifies the exact mechanism (copy to StaticResources, declare in report.json) and the return value (item_name), making it distinct from sibling tools like pbi_add_custom_visual. This is a specific verb+resource+outcome, not a tautology.

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 for when to use the tool: when you need to embed an image resource into a Power BI report. It also warns about the silent failure if both steps are not performed, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is narrow enough that this is not a major gap.

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