pbi_create_html_visual

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the registration side effect and the separation of measure creation. It does not mention permissions, error conditions, or whether existing visuals are affected, leaving gaps for a creation 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes a useful note about measure creation and the DAX approach, without unnecessary filler, though it could be slightly better structured with parameter explanations.

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 presence of an output schema and the tool's specific nature, the description covers the core behavior and workflow. However, it omits parameter details and alternative guidance, making it moderately complete but not fully self-sufficient for an agent.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains html_measure by stating it expects a measure returning HTML, but other parameters (page, title, position, request_id) are not described, leaving most parameters without added meaning.

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 it creates an 'HTML Content' visual that renders HTML/SVG from a measure. This is specific and differentiates it from generic visual creation tools, though it does not explicitly name siblings.

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?

It mentions that the measure is created separately with pbi_create_measure and that the visual is registered if not already present, providing some workflow context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pbi_create_visual.

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