pbi_refresh_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns status and duration and reports credential/source errors. However, it does not elaborate on the side effects of clear_values or potential long-running behavior, leaving some behavioral aspects unexplained.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by clear parameter explanations. No redundant or filler content; each sentence contributes to understanding.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values, but it still mentions status/duration. It covers core aspects such as the local model scope, types, table filtering, and error reporting. It could add prerequisites (e.g., a model must be open), but it is sufficiently complete for a refresh tool.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It explains the 'type' parameter with its allowed values and the 'tables' parameter with its optional semantics. The 'request_id' parameter is not explained, but it is generic and less critical, so the description adds significant meaning.

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 the tool refreshes the local Power BI Desktop model, not the Service, using the verb 'Refresca' and specifying the resource. It also enumerates the refresh types, making the purpose explicit and distinct from siblings that handle other model operations.

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 clear context: it targets the local open model in Power BI Desktop and explicitly excludes the Service, which is a when-not condition. It also explains the parameters type and tables with their meanings, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when to choose this over others.

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