disable_auto_date_time

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action (sets annotation, removes tables) and the benefit (slims model), but does not disclose potential side effects such as impacts on existing date hierarchies, time intelligence measures, or reversibility. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the main action in the first phrase. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the mechanism and effect, the second summarizes the benefit. No redundancy or filler.

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 only one parameter, so the description is relatively complete for a simple mutation. However, it omits important context such as prerequisites (e.g., an open model), reversibility, and potential downstream effects on existing visuals or measures that depend on auto date/time tables. This is a notable gap for a destructive operation.

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?

The input schema has only one parameter (sessionId) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what sessionId refers to or how it relates to the operation, although it indirectly implies the model associated with the session. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Turn OFF Auto date/time') and identifies the exact mechanism (sets __PBI_TimeIntelligenceEnabled to 0, removes auto date/time tables). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'set_annotation' or 'mark_as_date_table' by focusing on a specific, well-defined operation.

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 for when to use the tool (to slim the model and stop auto-date bloat) and explains the underlying problem (Power BI auto-generating hidden LocalDateTable). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clearly implied.

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