pbi_prepare_project

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

The description discloses significant behavioral details beyond the annotations: the passed path always wins over active/restored/Desktop state, failure leaves the previous active project unchanged, and two `.pbip` files in a folder produce `ambiguous_pbip_project` with an enumeration. It also explains that `open_result=true` opens the result and verifies the Desktop window serves that file. This gives an agent essential expectations for side effects and failure modes.

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 dense and front-loaded with the tool's purpose and input policy, then moves to precedence, failure behavior, response fields, and the open flag. Some rationale clauses are vivid but not strictly necessary, and the bullet structure makes the logic easy to follow. Overall it stays useful without being padded.

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?

Core behavior, input resolution, failure modes, and output traceability fields are well covered, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, the optional parameters that can alter behavior (`out_dir`, `overwrite`, `request_id`, `project_name`) are left unexplained, which is a notable gap for a six-parameter tool. The description is strong for the happy path but incomplete for advanced invocation details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter semantics, but it only meaningfully explains `path` and `open_result`. The other four parameters (`out_dir`, `overwrite`, `request_id`, `project_name`) receive no explanation, leaving their behavior ambiguous. The names and defaults offer hints, but the description does not compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 the tool as the session entry point and specifies what it does: it prepares exactly the provided project and reports which one was activated. It also differentiates its behavior for `.pbip`, `.pbix`, and folder inputs, so the core purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as `pbi_open_pbip_project` or `pbi_convert_pbix_to_pbip`, but the scope is clear enough.

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 explicitly frames this as the entry point of a work session and explains the accepted input types and the resolution policy for each: `.pbip`, `.pbix`, and folder. It also gives clear guidance on ambiguity failure. It does not state explicit alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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