generate_pbip

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 output is 'pure files' that 'Power BI Desktop / Fabric open it directly' and that no live engine is needed. It also explains the source inputs (live model + source pbix). However, it omits side effects like overwriting the output folder (though schema covers it) and potential prerequisites such as an active session or performance implications.

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 with every part earning its place. The first sentence immediately states the action and output structure, while the second emphasizes the key benefit (pure files, no live engine). It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and well front-loaded.

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 and lack of output schema, the description explains the complete output structure and the no-engine advantage. It covers the source inputs and the result. However, it does not detail the sessionId requirement or the behavior of includeData beyond schema defaults, leaving some gaps but still sufficient for a complex tool.

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 context by specifying that 'name' is used for folder names and that the source pbix provides the report. It also clarifies the distinction between the live model and the pbix-derived report. This enriches the schema descriptions, earning a 4.

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: 'Generate a complete text-based PBIP project from the live model + a source pbix's report' and explicitly lists the output components (.SemanticModel, .Report, .pbip). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like export_tmdl or save_pbir by emphasizing the complete multi-file project and the 'pure files' nature.

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: this is a foundational tool for producing a full PBIP project without a live Desktop dependency. It says 'This is the spine that gets the whole tool off the live-Desktop dependency,' implying its key role. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, stopping short of a perfect score.

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