run_refresh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses polling/wait behavior, the 1800s default timeout, both auth modes, and the shape of the return (status, duration, error, rollback). However, it never states that a refresh is a data-mutating operation, what permissions are required, or the cost/impact of triggering one, leaving significant behavioral gaps 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 well front-loaded with purpose, then structured into 'Use this tool when', 'Args', and 'Returns' sections. The Args list is long but justified by nine parameters and the schema's lack of descriptions; a few entries are terse filler, but overall it earns its space.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description still summarizes them briefly. Parameters are fully enumerated and auth options covered; what is missing is the operational context an agent needs for a mutation (side effects, failure/rollback handling, permissions), so it is not fully 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, and it does: all nine parameters are listed with meaning, and it supplies the refresh_type enum values ('full', 'automatic', 'data_only', 'calculate', 'clearValues') that are absent from the schema. The auth-related parameters are described only minimally (e.g., 'tenant_id: Azure AD tenant ID'), which keeps it from a 5.

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 opening sentence gives a precise verb+resource: 'Trigger, monitor, and optionally wait for a Power BI dataset refresh,' which tells an agent exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, reference any sibling tool or explicitly disambiguate from alternatives, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 'Use this tool when the user asks to:' block gives three concrete triggering conditions (refresh data, check completion status, perform specific refresh types). This is clear context for when to use it, but it offers no exclusions or alternative tools for cases like reading data instead of refreshing it.

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