pbi_backup_pbip_project

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that it creates a timestamped backup and returns the path. It does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or preconditions, so it only partially covers behavioral 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, with the main purpose in one sentence and parameter options in a single line. Every word contributes, making it highly efficient and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the core behavior, parameter options, and return value. Minor gaps like prerequisite conditions (active project) are not mentioned.

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 has zero description coverage, but the description enumerates the accepted values for both parameters ('folder | zip' and 'report | model | both') and notes the return value. However, it does not explain what each option means, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides a specific verb ('Crea'), resource ('.pbip project'), and qualifiers ('con timestamp', 'activo'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like pbi_purge_backups and pbi_recover_from_journal, making the tool's 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 implies usage as a backup creation tool via context, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites such as requiring an open project.

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