export_dataflow_modeljson

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a significant limitation with the FLAG about the pbi:mashup layout not being verified, which adds useful transparency. However, it does not mention whether the output file is overwritten, whether directories need to exist, or what error/return behavior to expect, leaving gaps for a file-writing tool.

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 concise, using three sentences to cover purpose, input format, and a critical caveat. It is front-loaded with the main action and every sentence earns its place without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the most complex parameter (entities) thoroughly and flags the main uncertainty about the pbi:mashup layout. It does not describe return values or file-handling behavior, but for an export tool that writes to disk, the provided context is quite complete and actionable.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful detail beyond the schema by enumerating the allowable dataType values (string|int64|double|...), clarifying that 'm' is the entity's full M query, and noting that the query mashup is embedded at the root. This helps agents construct valid 'entities' input, though other parameters like culture and sessionId are not elaborated.

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 ('Export'), a specific resource ('Power BI dataflow model.json'), and a destination ('to disk'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like export_tmdl and export_data_dictionary by specifying the output format and input requirements.

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 implies usage when you need to generate a dataflow model.json from entity definitions, and it details the required 'entities' structure. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., export_tmdl) or provide exclusion criteria, so guidance is only implicit.

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