refresh_dataset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (refresh), the API call (POST .../refreshes, NoNotification), the return value (requestId for correlation), and the auth requirement (AAD token via accessToken or DAXOPS_PBI_TOKEN, never echoed). This is substantial, though it doesn't note potential side effects like data unavailability or long-running behavior.

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: two sentences that cover purpose, API detail, return value, and auth. Every clause adds value, with no 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the operation, the endpoint, notification behavior, auth context, and return value. It also points to the related status tool. The sibling set includes similar refresh tools, and this description sufficiently distinguishes the dataset-level refresh.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning about the accessToken parameter ('or DAXOPS_PBI_TOKEN; never echoed'), which is security-relevant and not in the schema. It also clarifies that the tool returns a requestId, helping understand the relationship between parameters and result.

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: 'Trigger a refresh of a published dataset' with a specific verb (trigger/refresh) and resource (published dataset). It also mentions the endpoint and notifyOption, and differentiates from sibling tools like refresh_table and refresh_partition by specifying 'published dataset' and correlating to get_refresh_status.

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 when to use this tool: to trigger a dataset-level refresh and correlate the resulting requestId with get_refresh_status. It doesn't explicitly exclude table/partition refreshes or name alternatives, but 'published dataset' and the correlation hint provide clear context. It does not mention when NOT to use it, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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