pbi_set_storage_mode

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing significant behavioral impacts: directQuery makes refresh disappear, requires foldable M queries, disables calculated columns/tables, and turns every visual into a server query. It also reveals return values (previous mode, number of partitions changed) for undoability and the requirement that the project be closed. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context that the annotations do not convey.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized: it covers purpose, risks, return values, and a prerequisite in a few short sentences. There is no redundancy or fluff; every sentence adds distinct value, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 mutating and potentially disruptive nature, the description is thorough: it explains what changes, the directQuery-specific risks, what is returned (for undo), and a critical prerequisite (closed project). The presence of an output schema covers the return structure, so the description does not need to detail it further. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does mention the allowed modes for 'mode' and indicates the target is a 'table', but it does not describe the 'request_id' parameter or the expected format of 'table'. This leaves part of the parameter space unexplained, so the compensation is incomplete.

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 the storage mode of a table, enumerating the exact allowed values (import, directQuery, dual). The verb 'Cambia' plus the resource 'modo de almacenamiento de una tabla' makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 explains the consequences of using directQuery (refresh disappears, M query must be foldable, calculated columns/tables unavailable) which implicitly suggests when this tool might be used, but it does not explicitly state usage scenarios, alternatives, or exclusions. The prerequisite (project closed in Power BI Desktop) is a useful guideline, but it does not fully replace explicit when-to-use guidance.

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