pbi_select_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the stateful nature (selecting an active model affects future operations) and the port requirement conditional. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, persistence scope, or what 'active' means, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds essential conditional usage detail. No wasted words.

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 tool is relatively simple, but the description omits the `catalog` parameter and doesn't clarify the persistence/scope of the selection. It does leverage the output schema and sibling reference, but the catalog gap and lack of annotation make it only partially complete.

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 explains the `port` parameter's optionality and where to find values, but completely ignores the `catalog` parameter. With two parameters, only one is semantically explained; the other remains undocumented, a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Selecciona') and resource ('modelo local activo'), clearly stating it selects the active local model for future operations. It also distinguishes itself from sibling pbi_list_desktop_models by referencing that tool as the source for port values.

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 gives clear conditional guidance: if only one model is open, no port is needed; if multiple, pass the port from pbi_list_desktop_models. It does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the conditional logic and sibling reference provide solid usage context.

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