pbi_create_pbip_project

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: it 'deja activo' the project, uses relative paths to avoid machine-specific coupling, includes one page because a report without one won't open, and intentionally omits `sourceQueryCulture` with reasoning. These are meaningful behavioral details that the annotations (all false) do not cover.

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 organized into short paragraphs, each serving a purpose: purpose, workflow, technical rationale, and culture note. It is more detailed than strictly necessary but every sentence earns its place, with no filler 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?

The description provides rich rationale for design decisions, but with 9 parameters and zero schema coverage, the missing parameter semantics create a gap. An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description should do more to explain how input parameters affect the created project.

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%, yet the description doesn't explain most parameters. It only hints at the culture parameter through the `sourceQueryCulture` discussion, but out_dir, name, width, height, overwrite, page_name, request_id, and open_project remain semantically unexplained. The description adds some context but doesn't compensate for the high parameter count.

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 creates an empty but valid .pbip project: 'Crea un proyecto .pbip vacio pero valido, y lo deja activo.' It also distinguishes this from siblings by framing it as the starting point for a file-path-based workflow, mentioning pbi_add_table_from_file as the next step — a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 gives clear when-to-use context: 'Es el punto de partida para armar un tablero solo con rutas de archivos' and outlines the intended workflow (create project, load data, compose pages). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., converting an existing .pbix), the workflow guidance effectively implies its place among alternatives.

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