pbi_export_pbix

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

The description is rich in behavioral detail: it verifies the saved file, never closes windows it did not open, backs up before overwriting, and explains UI Automation caveats. However, it explicitly says that with overwrite=true an existing destination is overwritten, which contradicts the annotation destructiveHint=false. Per the rubric, a description that contradicts annotations receives a score of 1 and must be flagged.

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 long but well structured: purpose first, then preconditions, refresh behavior, verification, leave_open, and environment requirements. Some phrasing like 'un zip cosido con TOM' adds color and explanatory value. It is dense enough that most sentences earn their place, though a few could be tightened.

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 is unusually complete on workflow, preconditions, verification, and failure behavior, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, with 8 parameters and no schema descriptions for any of them, leaving five parameters undocumented in the description creates a real completeness gap. The annotation contradiction further undermines trust in the definition.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does explain refresh, overwrite, and leave_open with real semantics. However, out_path, pbip_path, timeout, request_id, and confirm_reuse are left unexplained, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Exporta el proyecto .pbip a un archivo .pbix'. It also clarifies this is the official Power BI Desktop 'Guardar como' flow, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_convert_pbix_to_pbip, pbi_open_in_desktop, or other 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 gives concrete usage conditions: Windows, Power BI Desktop, the export extra, and a direct pointer to check pbi_capabilities for pbix_export availability. It also explains when the tool fails before opening windows and what each refresh mode does. It does not explicitly compare against sibling export tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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