add_pbir_visual

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a 'fresh GUID folder' (new unique visual, not overwriting) and returns the GUID name, which is useful. It also mentions the query is built by a shared builder. However, it does not state permissions, validation behavior, or potential side effects on the page layout.

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 concise sentences deliver purpose, structural path, query-building behavior, field format, and return value without unnecessary verbosity. Information is front-loaded with the core action.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, but the description explains the primary behavior (creating a visual, building query, returning GUID) and the most complex parameter (`fields`). It omits explicit guidance on positional/sizing parameters, but those are simple and have defaults, so the context is largely sufficient for correct use.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates well for the `fields` parameter by detailing its JSON structure and enums (role, table, field, kind). It also notes `page` usage via the path. However, it leaves `x`, `y`, `width`, `height`, `title`, and `pbirSessionId` unexplained beyond their names/defaults.

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 adds a visual to a PBIR page and specifies the exact folder structure created (`pages/<page>/visuals/<guid>/visual.json`). This distinguishes it from generic visual tools (e.g., `add_visual`) via the PBIR-specific artifact and shared query builder.

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?

Implied usage is to add visuals to PBIR pages, and the mention of the shared query builder suggests automated query construction. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like `add_visual` or `add_chart`, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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