pbi_set_relationship_direction

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns that changing to 'single' can alter totals, and it explains the 'mode' parameter's behavior with 'live' vs 'pbip' and the temporary disabling of 'mode='both''. This goes beyond the basic readOnlyHint/destructiveHint flags, which are all false, and provides useful side-effect information.

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 the tool's purpose. It then provides essential parameter details and warnings in a readable format. The 'OJO' and 'No confundir' notes are useful and not overly verbose. It could be slightly more structured, but it is well within acceptable length.

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 need not explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, key parameter semantics, and important behavioral caveats (side effects on totals, mode restrictions). While it doesn't discuss prerequisites like model selection or relationship identification, the core operation is well-described for a tool of this 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for the most critical parameters. It explains the meaning and allowed values for 'direction' ('single' vs 'both') and clarifies the confusing relationship between 'direction' and 'mode', including the caveat about 'mode='both''. However, it does not explain 'from_table', 'to_table', or 'request_id', though these are somewhat self-explanatory from their names.

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 function: 'Cambia el filtro cruzado de una relacion' (changes the cross-filter direction of a relationship). This is a specific verb and resource, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like pbi_create_relationship or pbi_list_relationships, though no explicit sibling differentiation is mentioned.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only implies usage through the purpose statement and gives parameter-level warnings (e.g., about 'mode'), but there is no clear context about prerequisites, alternative tools, or situations where this tool should be avoided.

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