pbi_apply_theme

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

Despite all annotation hints being false, the description discloses key side effects: it writes theme files, replaces an existing theme with a warning, retains a recoverable backup, and notes that custom data_colors may bypass color-blindness verification. It also explains interaction between preset, theme_json, data_colors, and fonts. This goes well beyond the minimal annotation data.

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 thorough but each sentence adds value, covering purpose, mechanism, parameters, edge cases, and prerequisites in a structured manner. It uses backtick formatting for parameters to aid scanning. No fluff or redundancy is present.

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 complexity (multiple interacting parameters, file writes, replacement behavior) and annotations that provide no safety signal, the description covers all essential aspects: what, how, when, side effects, and prerequisites. The output schema presumably handles return value details, so no need to describe them here.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining every parameter except request_id: preset (see pbi_list_themes), data_colors (format #RRGGBB and side effect), name (visible name), theme_json (complete theme, overrides preset), and fonts (specific structure). It also clarifies precedence when theme_json is used with data_colors/fonts.

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 opens with 'Aplica un tema de colores al informe .pbip activo', a specific verb and resource. It further explains the mechanism of writing to StaticResources/RegisteredResources and report.json, distinguishing it from listing or design system tools. The scope is clear and action-oriented.

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: requires the project closed in Power BI Desktop, and theme_json is recommended for corporate typography or formats not covered by presets. It references pbi_list_themes for preset options. However, it does not explicitly name alternative apply tools like pbi_apply_design_system, so no direct when-not-to-use guidance.

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