save_open_pbix

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 discloses the mechanism (scripted Ctrl+S), the data-inclusive save, the pbixPath confirmation via LastWriteTime, and the XMLA branch with exact response fields. Minor gaps: no mention of failure modes or permissions, but overall very informative for an unannotated 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?

Three sentences with front-loaded purpose. The long third sentence about XMLA is dense but relevant. Every clause carries functional information; no filler. Length is justified by the tool's dual-mode complexity.

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 complexity (Desktop vs XMLA modes), the description covers the main behaviors and requirements. However, no output schema and no explicit return value for the primary Desktop save path (only XMLA response fields are given). Also, error handling (e.g., if .pbix not open) is not described, so not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds purpose for pbixPath (confirm save landed via LastWriteTime) and for XMLA mode, but saveRetries and sessionId are already well-described in the schema. No extra syntax or format detail beyond schema.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('Persist') and resource ('OPEN Power BI Desktop model to its .pbix'), explains the mechanism (driving File>Save via Ctrl+S), and differentiates from siblings by stating it is the 'model-side save' the toolkit otherwise lacks. It clearly distinguishes from report-level or project-level save tools.

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?

States explicit usage context—'after any live model edit... call this'—and prerequisite ('Requires the .pbix open in Power BI Desktop'). Describes the XMLA/Fabric alternative behavior (server-side refresh) but does not name alternative sibling tools, so clear context but no explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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