pbi_close_desktop

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description details the destructive consequences (unsaved changes lost, including refreshed data in .pbip), the required confirm=true, the verification of process identity, and the behavior when the file isn't open (does nothing, reports was_open: false). This adds substantial behavioral context that the annotation alone doesn't provide.

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 efficient and well-structured: starts with the core purpose, then provides context, behavior, and parameter nuances. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it both concise and informative.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown but indicated), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage context, destructive behavior, parameter meaning, and expected outcomes (verified_closed, was_open). It is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 the key parameters: path/pbip_path can be omitted to target the active project, and confirm must be true for destructive operation. It doesn't mention request_id, but that may be a generic parameter. The most critical parameters are well-documented.

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 function: closing the Power BI Desktop instance serving a specific project. It uses a specific verb ('Cierra') and resource ('instancia de Power BI Desktop que sirve ESE proyecto'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pbi_open_in_desktop by focusing on the closing action.

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 strong contextual guidance: it explains that writing TMDL requires Desktop closed and that this tool fills the gap. It also mentions that the path can be omitted to close the active project. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, though the context is clear enough.

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