add_pbir_bookmark

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the on-disk side effects (new bookmark.json file plus index entry) and the behavior of hiddenVisuals (hides listed visuals, shows all others). It lacks details on permissions or overwrite semantics, but the core effects are clearly explained, going beyond a simple 'add' 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and then provides necessary behavioral detail. The structure is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover essential context. It explains the operation and hiddenVisuals, but the purpose of pbirSessionId is not explained, and there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an open PBIR session). This is a moderate gap for a mutation tool with four parameters.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are described. The description adds meaning to hiddenVisuals by explaining that it's a JSON array of visual GUIDs to hide while showing all others. However, pbirSessionId remains undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a gap for a required parameter.

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: 'Add a bookmark to a PBIR report'. It specifies the exact file structure (definition/bookmarks/<guid>.bookmark.json and bookmarks.json index entry), which distinguishes it from generic bookmark tools like add_bookmark and aligns with its PBIR-specific name.

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 implies usage for PBIR reports through the name and first phrase, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like add_bookmark or set_pbir_bookmark. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so the guidance is merely implied.

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