save_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key mutation behavior (writes edits back to the .pbix) and the critical closed-file requirement. However, it does not mention reversibility, error conditions, or what happens if the file is open, leaving some 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 two sentences, both essential: it states the action and a critical prerequisite. No filler or redundancy; information is 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?

The tool is a mutation with one parameter and no output schema. The description covers the core action and prerequisite but lacks usage guidelines for alternatives and parameter semantics. It is adequate for an agent familiar with the workflow but incomplete for full self-containment.

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 0%, and the description does not mention reportSessionId at all. The parameter name gives some clue, but the agent is not told where to obtain this ID (e.g., from open_report). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 writes all report edits back into the .pbix file, using the specific verb 'write back' and resource '.pbix'. It also adds technical detail about patching Report/Layout in the ZIP, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_open_pbix or save_pbir.

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 provides a clear prerequisite: 'The .pbix must be CLOSED in Power BI Desktop.' This implies the tool should be used when the file is closed, and indirectly suggests alternatives for open files. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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