ms-fabric-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Add a relationship' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what the output contains. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description lacks critical context about behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and usage guidelines needed for proper tool 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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 9 parameters, the description provides no parameter semantics beyond what's implied by parameter names. It mentions 'relationship between two tables' which hints at from_table/to_table parameters, but doesn't explain workspace_name, semantic_model_name, cardinality, cross_filter_direction, or is_active parameters.

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 action ('Add a relationship') and target resource ('between two tables in an existing semantic model'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_table_to_semantic_model' or 'add_measures_to_semantic_model', which target different aspects of semantic models.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., existing tables/semantic model), or exclusions. It mentions 'existing semantic model' but doesn't clarify if this is a requirement or just context.

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