generate_embed_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the token is scoped and short-lived, clarifies the auth prerequisite, and importantly states that the AAD token is never echoed—a meaningful security behavior. It could go further by describing error conditions or exact expiry, but it provides solid behavioral context.

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 the core action and API reference, followed by requirements. Every clause earns its place without redundancy.

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?

For a token-generation tool with four optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains purpose, required auth scope, and a key security property. Minor gaps like response format are not critical for this tool's use.

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%, with each parameter already having a description. The description adds context by grouping datasets/reports/workspaces and clarifying the accessToken fallback to DAXOPS_PBI_TOKEN, but this largely reinforces schema content rather than adding new semantic detail.

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 uses the specific verb 'Mint' with the resource 'Power BI EMBED token' and references the exact API endpoint (POST /GenerateToken). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating the use case (embedding app handing a short-lived token to the browser) and the scoped inputs (datasets/reports/workspaces).

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 clearly communicates the primary scenario: generating an embed token for embedding apps. It also states the authentication requirement (AAD token or DAXOPS_PBI_TOKEN). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool mentions, but the tool's unique purpose among siblings makes usage unambiguous.

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