pbi_apply_audit_fixes

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description provides meaningful behavioral context: each action uses transaction/verification/rollback, failures are reported without stopping others or hiding them, and confirm=true is required—all useful for safe invocation.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action and a critical prerequisite; no 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?

With output schema present and annotations covering destructive/read-only, the description adds essential failure-handling behavior and a guard condition. Missing request_id semantics and action structure detail, but overall adequate for a complex destructive operation.

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 coverage is 0%; the description gives semantic weight to the 'actions' parameter by sourcing it from pbi_plan_audit_fixes and to 'confirm' by making it a mandatory gate, but request_id is never explained and the open-ended action objects are not detailed.

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 states 'Aplica las acciones devueltas por pbi_plan_audit_fixes' (Applies the actions returned by the plan tool), clearly identifying a verb (applies), a resource (actions), and the source, distinguishing it from sibling pbi_plan_audit_fixes and other tools.

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?

It specifies a prerequisite 'Requiere confirm=true' and implicitly situates the tool after pbi_plan_audit_fixes, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use.

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