pbi_create_relationship

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

Annotations are all false (no readOnly/opensWorld hints), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool writes to TMDL ('Escribe en TMDL'), requires the project closed, and explains the ambiguity implications of cross-filtering directions. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the schema, such as the default safe behavior and the need to justify complex filtering scenarios. It does not discuss side effects like overwriting (though an 'overwrite' parameter exists), but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 three concise sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, default behavior/guidance, and a key requirement. It is front-loaded with the action and avoids filler or repetition. No word is wasted.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool is complex (11 parameters, mutating operation, TMDL writing). The description covers the default cardinality and cross-filtering warning, plus the closed-project prerequisite, but leaves most parameters unexplained and does not describe return values or error scenarios. Given the zero schema coverage, this is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with correct parameters.

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% for all 11 parameters. The description only adds semantics for 'cross_filtering' (explains the default 'oneDirection' and warns about 'bothDirections') and implicitly for cardinalities (default many-to-one). It does not explain 'from_table', 'to_column', 'is_active', 'overwrite', 'name', 'request_id', or other parameters. This is insufficient for a tool with 11 parameters and zero schema-level documentation.

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 action: 'Crea una relacion entre dos columnas del modelo .pbip' (creates a relationship between two columns). This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like pbi_set_relationship_direction (which changes direction) and pbi_list_relationships (which lists relationships). The scope (.pbip model) is also explicit.

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 explicit guidance on default cardinality and filtering ('muchos-a-uno con filtro en un sentido... lo unico que no introduce ambiguedad') and warns against using 'bothDirections' unless justified. It also states a critical prerequisite: the project must be CLOSED in Power BI Desktop when writing TMDL. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it lacks a direct when-to-use vs. alternative comparison.

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