set_slicer_selection

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it writes back to the .pbix with 'DataModel preserved', writes 'strictSingleSelect = true', auto-picks the first option when none is selected, and writes the default_value as a 'Categorical selection filter'. It also warns against the file being open in Power BI Desktop. These are substantive behavioral disclosures beyond the schema, making the tool's side effects and constraints clear.

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 front-loaded with 'TARGETED offline slicer fix' and provides a clear sequence of actions. It is longer than necessary with repeated emphasis ('THIS is the fix', 'TARGETED'), but every sentence carries useful information about the operation, outcome, and constraints. It is well-organized and sufficiently concise for a complex mutation tool.

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 covers the tool's purpose, the exact mechanism of single-select, how default_value is applied, and the critical prerequisite that the .pbix must be closed. Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this is quite complete. It does not detail error cases or return values, but those are less critical for this type of offline mutation 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?

The schema already covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining how default_value is written ('as a Categorical selection filter') and reinforcing the purpose of single_select in the context of field-parameter axes. This additional semantic context elevates it above baseline, but not to a 5 because the schema already handles the basics.

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 action: 'open a CLOSED .pbix, make a slicer SINGLE-SELECT (and optionally pre-select a default value), then write the .pbix back'. It identifies the specific resource (slicer in a .pbix) and the verb (set single-select). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'fix_slicer_single_select', which appears to have a nearly identical purpose, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 usage context: 'THIS is the fix for a field-parameter axis that flat-lines' and states the prerequisite 'The .pbix must NOT be open in Power BI Desktop'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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