pbi_backup_pbip_project

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds that backups are timestamped and returns the path. It does not disclose where backups are stored, whether they overwrite, or if an active project must be open, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second lists options and return value. Front-loaded, no fluff, and appropriately sized.

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 output schema likely covers the return path, and the core action is clear. However, missing context about backup location, project prerequisites, and interaction between mode and scope reduces completeness for safe and effective invocation.

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 must explain parameters. It merely lists mode values (folder|zip) and scope values (report|model|both) without defining them, and request_id is completely undocumented. This is insufficient for correct parameter use.

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: creates a timestamped backup of the active .pbip project. It uses a specific verb ('Crea') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pbi_convert_pbix_to_pbip or pbi_purge_backups.

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 (backing up a project) but does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives. It gives no 'when not to use' guidance, though the self-explanatory backup context provides some implicit direction.

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