bridge_reload

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the destructive nature: it is 'UNSAFE-FOR-PIPELINE', discards in-memory state, and refuses unless force=true when unsaved changes exist. It also explains the underlying reason (reload discards in-memory state), which is critical behavioral context for an agent.

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, front-loaded with a critical safety warning ('UNSAFE-FOR-PIPELINE'), and provides essential details without fluff. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, risks, and conditions.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, safety profile, workflow position, and refusal/force behavior. It is sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke bridge_reload, given that the input schema fully documents 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that force=true is required to discard unsaved changes and that the reload discards in-memory state, which maps directly to the force parameter's semantics. It does not detail pid or timeoutSec, but the schema already documents these adequately.

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 hot-reloads the on-disk PBIP/PBIR definition into an open Power BI Desktop via file.reload/v1. It identifies the specific action, resource, and workflow position ('composition step after save_pbir'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like save_pbir or read_pbir.

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 strong contextual guidance: it is 'UNSAFE-FOR-PIPELINE' and 'interactive attach only', which explicitly indicates when not to use it. It also notes the appropriate sequence ('after save_pbir') and the condition for using force=true. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the exclusion and sequence are clear.

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