pbi_apply_theme

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the full burden and excels. It reveals file writes to StaticResources/RegisteredResources and report.json, the silent-ignore failure mode, deep-merge semantics for patch, loss of color-blind ordering when using data_colors, requirement for the project to be closed, and backup/replacement behavior. This is far beyond typical descriptions.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, then organized by parameter with clear, dense explanations. Every sentence adds value, covering file paths, failure modes, merge semantics, and prerequisites, without wastefulness or repetition.

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 seven parameters, no required fields, and complex file-modifying behavior, the description covers all critical context: file operations, prerequisites, parameter interactions, replacement warnings, and backup recovery. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. The only minor gap is the unexplained request_id, but it does not hinder effective use.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains preset, data_colors, name, theme_json, fonts, and patch, including precedence and interaction (e.g., theme_json overrides preset; fonts and data_colors apply on top). The only omission is request_id, but that is a minor, likely common parameter, and the overall compensation is outstanding.

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 first line explicitly states the tool's core function: 'Aplica un tema de colores al informe .pbip activo' (Applies a color theme to the active .pbip report). It clearly names the resource type (.pbip report) and the action (apply theme), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pbi_list_themes and pbi_apply_design_system.

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 gives extensive guidance on parameter selection: use preset for presets, theme_json for full custom themes, fonts for typography, and patch for partial changes. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as pbi_apply_design_system, so it misses clear 'when to use this vs. that' tool-level guidance.

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