pbi_open_and_refresh

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses important behavior: if the refresh fails, the window is intentionally left open to preserve context, and this is surfaced via desktop_left_open. It also explains session reuse with reuse_open. No contradiction with 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 organized into three short paragraphs, front-loading the main purpose. Each sentence adds context (why combined, failure behavior, reuse). It is slightly verbose but justified by the complexity of the operation.

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 covers key behavioral edge cases (failure handling, session reuse) and why this tool exists as a combined operation. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. It could further explain how parameters like type and tables affect the refresh, but the defaults and schema soften this gap.

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 must compensate. It explicitly explains reuse_open (reuse session) and references rows_by_table in output, but does not clarify path, type, tables, timeout, or request_id. Given six parameters, this is insufficient.

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 it opens a project in Power BI Desktop and refreshes it in a single call. It also explains why this combined operation is needed (a newly opened .pbip has no data), distinguishing it from separate open-only or refresh-only sibling tools.

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 when to use this tool: it's the real work sequence, emphasizing that opening without refreshing is useless. It also mentions reuse_open for already-open sessions. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like pbi_open_in_desktop or pbi_refresh_model as exclusions, though the context is clear.

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