pbi_set_column_visibility

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains a key behavioral constraint (mode='both' is temporarily disabled and would apply only one destination) and prerequisites for live/pbip modes. It does not cover potential side effects or persistence, but the essential behavioral caveat is well communicated.

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, consisting of two focused sentences. The first sentence states purpose with an example, and the second delivers critical mode constraints. No filler or repeated schema information is present.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential points: what it does, the key mode limitation, and prerequisites. The output schema handles return values, so further detail is not expected. The description is complete enough for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 add meaning. It thoroughly explains the 'mode' parameter (values live/pbip/both and their conditions), and 'hidden' is implicitly covered by 'oculta o muestra'. 'Table' and 'column' are contextually understandable from 'una columna del modelo'. However, 'request_id' is not mentioned, so not all parameters are fully addressed.

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's purpose: 'Oculta o muestra una columna del modelo' (hides or shows a model column), with a concrete example. It is specific in verb and resource, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like pbi_hide_columns, though the singular 'una columna' implies a single-column operation.

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 guidance on mode selection: it explains that mode='both' is disabled, that 'live' requires Power BI Desktop open, and 'pbip' requires it closed, telling the user to choose one. However, it does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as pbi_hide_columns, so no explicit exclusions are given.

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