Change the visible name of a Power BI page while keeping its internal identifier unchanged.
Cambia el nombre visible de una pagina. El id interno no cambia.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | ||
| new_name | Yes | ||
| request_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate mutation without destructive effects. The description adds a useful behavioral nuance: the internal ID remains unchanged, which helps agents understand side effects. It does not cover all possible impacts (e.g., references), but given the simple operation this is adequate.
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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately conveys the key detail about internal ID stability.
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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is mostly complete. It could mention return values or error conditions, but the core behavior is clearly described. The annotation already covers safety aspects, so this is near-complete for its complexity.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, leaving only property titles 'Page' and 'New Name'. The description does not explain what the 'page' parameter expects (name, ID, or object reference) nor any constraints for 'new_name'. This is a significant gap because the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema details.
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 changes a page's visible name and notes that the internal ID does not change, providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like duplicate or delete page, as it is solely for renaming.
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 the tool (renaming a page) and is unambiguous for that action. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a rename operation this is acceptable and clear enough for an agent to select it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.