set_pbir_bookmark

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 ('overwrite in place') and explains the hiddenVisuals parameter. However, it does not mention potential side effects, error behavior (e.g., if bookmark does not exist), or permissions required.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second explains the key parameter. No filler or redundant content.

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 description is sufficient for a simple update tool, but no output schema and no annotations mean it should disclose more about error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., bookmark must exist), or return behavior. The description covers the main action but leaves these gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for hiddenVisuals by specifying it is a JSON array of visual GUID names to hide on the bookmark's page. It also clarifies 'name' as a GUID name. This adds value beyond the schema without repeating it.

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 a specific verb ('Overwrite') and resource ('existing PBIR bookmark's explorationState'), and clarifies the in-place nature ('keeps its GUID name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_pbir_bookmark or delete_bookmark.

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 states this tool operates on an existing bookmark ('existing'), which implies it is for updates rather than creation. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., add_pbir_bookmark), so usage guidance is clear but without explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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