pbi_export_excel

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: files are written to `outputs/excel/` and never inside the PBIP, existing names are not overwritten, injected formulas are neutralized, and the XLSX is reopened before reporting success. It also clarifies that query execution is read-only DAX. These details significantly exceed the simple boolean annotations.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and uses three focused paragraphs to convey behavior, safety, and conditions. Each sentence contributes information, though the middle paragraph is dense with multiple details and could be slightly restructured for readability.

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?

For a complex tool with multiple sheets, conditional behavior (PBIP active, DAX query), and file output, the description provides strong coverage of side effects, output location, and safety checks. However, it omits explicit parameter semantics and error scenarios, though an output schema exists to cover return structure.

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?

The description adds meaning for `source` (auto|live|pbip) and `query` (read-only DAX against Desktop with truncation declaration), but it does not explain `max_rows`, `file_name`, `include_audit`, or `include_report`. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more; the remaining parameter semantics are left to inference from their names.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Exporta la informacion disponible a un libro Excel verificado,' clearly stating it exports available information to a verified Excel workbook. It further details the sheet types (summary, tables, columns, measures, relationships, pages, visuals, audit), which distinguishes it from sibling export tools like HTML or PDF exporters.

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 contextual usage details such as supported `source` modes and optional DAX query execution, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like pbi_export_page_html or pbi_generate_pdf_report. No exclusions or when-not use cases are mentioned.

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