fix_slicer_single_select

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral details: it opens the .pbix, modifies strictSingleSelect, writes back while preserving the DataModel, and requires the file to be closed. It also explains the auto-detection logic and what the return object contains, leaving no significant behavioral gaps.

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 long but well-organized, front-loading the core fix and then explaining optional parameters and prerequisites. Some redundancy (e.g., repeating the flat-line cause and 'THAT is the whole fix') prevents a perfect score, but every sentence generally adds value.

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 lacking an output schema, the description explicitly lists the return fields and covers all relevant aspects: prerequisites (file closed), auto-detection rules, optional disambiguation, and the exact property written. It is complete for a tool of this 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds practical context beyond the schema: it gives an example of how the pbix and page appear in a request, clarifies that no slicer name or boolean is needed, and explains when chart and default_value are necessary. This enriches the schema's brief parameter descriptions.

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 it is a one-call fix for a field-parameter-axis chart, and details the exact workflow: open a closed .pbix, find the field-parameter slicer, set strictSingleSelect=true, and write back. This distinguishes it from related slicer tools like set_slicer_selection by targeting the specific flat-line symptom.

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?

It gives explicit usage instructions: 'Give ONLY the .pbix path and the page name' and explains when to use it (field-parameter-bound chart flat-lines). It also describes optional parameters for disambiguation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, so it stops short of full comparative guidance.

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