pbi_finalize_delivery

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well. It discloses the full pipeline, including conversion of .pbix, that it drives Power BI Desktop, that it inspects the result, and that it leaves the deliverable open with the active model selected. It also flags format limitations and Windows requirements, though it does not explain side effects on the source project or overwrite failure behavior.

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 moderately sized but well structured: it front-loads the ultimate purpose, summarizes the pipeline, lists the output keys, and then clarifies parameter and requirement notes. Each section earns its place, though the Spanish phrasing is slightly editorial and 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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no meaningful annotations, the description is incomplete despite the existing output schema. It covers the core workflow and output keys, but leaves five parameters and important edge-case behavior such as overwrite and refresh undocumented. An agent cannot fully determine how to invoke all options correctly.

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 no parameters have descriptions, so the description must compensate. It only explains path ('se puede omitir para usar el proyecto activo') and format ('solo acepta pbix'), leaving refresh, out_path, overwrite, leave_open, and request_id unexplained. The names and defaults hint at some meaning, but the description is far from sufficient for seven parameters.

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 identifies this as the final step of a build pipeline and enumerates a concrete end-to-end behavior: resolving a file, converting .pbix, validating, exporting via Power BI Desktop, inspecting, and opening the result as the active model. This strongly differentiates it from sibling operations like prepare_delivery or export_pbix because it explicitly claims to replace five earlier calls.

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 explicitly labels the tool as 'EL ULTIMO paso de una construccion' and says it replaces five separate calls and assumptions, giving agents clear when-to-use context. It also states preconditions (Windows + Power BI Desktop) and explains that path can be omitted to use the active project. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, 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.