edit_model_offline

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: data is not preserved, M tables return empty until refresh, structure round-trips exactly, and offline cold .pbix cannot be read. It also clarifies that no Power BI Desktop or live engine is involved.

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?

Despite being lengthy, every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the core constraint ('STRUCTURE-ONLY... NO Power BI Desktop, NO live engine') and organized with clear warnings and usage guidance. No fluff.

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 description covers purpose, behavior, limitations, and alternatives comprehensively. The only gap is not detailing the expected format of the 'edits' parameter, but the schema already provides a baseline and this is a minor omission given the complexity.

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 100% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds limited context about tmdlFolder being produced by export_tmdl/generate_pbip/unpack_to_source, but does not elaborate on the edits JSON structure beyond the schema's 'op' mention.

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 opens with 'STRUCTURE-ONLY offline model edit' and outlines the full deserialize-edit-reserialize workflow. It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools persist_model_edit and persist_open_model, making the tool's unique niche clear.

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?

States exactly when to use this tool ('Use this for template / thin-model edits and source-control workflows') and names alternatives for data-preserving edits. The NOTE about cold .pbix files provides a critical prerequisite, guiding correct selection.

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