add_pbir_filter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does include useful behavioral details: it writes to the filterConfig.filters array, uses shared filter builders, and explains that kind=categorical|in|values yields an is-one-of list while other kinds produce comparison/blank filters. However, it omits side effects like whether existing filters are replaced or what happens if a session is invalid.

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, tightly packed with essential information. The first sentence gives the purpose and mechanism; the second details parameter-driven behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers core filter-building logic well but lacks context on session requirements (pbirSessionId), return behavior, and any potential side effects. It is complete enough for the primary action but leaves gaps around operational prerequisites.

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 73%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds valuable cross-parameter semantics: the relationship between kind and values (is-one-of vs comparison) and how valueType drives the literal suffix. This goes beyond the schema's isolated field descriptions.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'a filter to a PBIR report' with explicit scope options (report|page|visual). It differentiates from siblings by specifying PBIR and the config array, though it does not name alternative tools explicitly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling filter tools (e.g., add_report_filter, add_visual_filter, add_page_filter). The context is implied by 'PBIR report' but there are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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