add_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: it 'embeds the file into the .pbix as a resource' (a side-effect with file size implications) and 'adds an image visual'. It also enumerates the scaling options. While it doesn't cover permissions or error behavior, the embedding behavior is a significant non-obvious trait that goes beyond a generic 'add image' statement.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core action and embed details efficiently. The brand kit phrasing adds context without redundancy, and the scaling line is a compact reference.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description leaves too many gaps: no explanation of x/y/width/height semantics, no mention of required session/page context, and no indication of return values or error conditions. The simple use case is clear, but operational completeness is lacking.

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 low (25%), so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters like x, y, width, height, pageName, and reportSessionId. It only re-echoes the scaling enum and gives an example ('brand LOGO') for imagePath, but does not explain coordinate units, defaults (already in schema), or how to obtain required session/page identifiers. This is insufficient for a tool with 8 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 uses a specific verb ('Place') and resource ('an image on a page') with concrete detail about embedding the file into the .pbix and adding an image visual. It clearly distinguishes itself from generic tools like add_visual by focusing on image resources and brand logo use case.

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 context: use this for placing a brand logo in the report, explicitly noting it 'Completes the brand kit (logo IN the report, not just the palette)'. While it doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, the brand kit framing gives a specific use case that implies when to choose this tool over generic visual-adders.

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