pbi_document_model

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states 'Guarda el archivo en outputs/' (saves the file in outputs/), which is a useful side-effect disclosure beyond annotations. However, it does not mention whether existing files are overwritten or if a live connection is required.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main action, and lists included content and output location without unnecessary detail. Every sentence provides value.

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 exists, so return values are handled. The description covers the core purpose and side effect, but lacks parameter semantics and explicit usage guidance. For a tool with two parameters and a file output, it is adequate but not complete.

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%, and the description provides almost no parameter information. It mentions quality warnings, which weakly hints at 'include_quality', but completely ignores the 'source' parameter. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 generates complete model documentation in Markdown and lists the specific included components (summary, tables, columns, measures, relationships, hierarchies, roles, quality warnings). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_model_summary or pbi_audit_model.

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 when full model documentation is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools like pbi_generate_technical_documentation or pbi_model_summary.

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