apply_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags a mutation ('SẼ GHI vào đây'), a concurrency constraint that data will be overwritten if the file is open, and the return payload (new page path + manual verification steps). It omits auth/permission requirements, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the critical warning, then per-parameter semantics, then return value. Dense but every block earns its place; minor verbosity in the embedded JSON example is justified by the 0% schema coverage.

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 complex mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the write target, the required environmental precondition, all three parameters, and the return contract. Complete enough to invoke correctly, though permission/error behavior is unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does: it defines the three accepted forms of report_path, the origin of kit_dir, and a full JSON shape for page_spec including role mappings per visual type and field types (Measure | Column). This adds substantial meaning the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Dựng TRANG MỚI vào báo cáo PBIR từ template kit') and immediately scopes the mechanism ('clone-and-rebind — không dựng layout từ đầu'). This clearly separates it from siblings like distill_template (builds the kit) and list_templates (lists kits).

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('File .pbip phải ĐANG ĐÓNG trong Power BI Desktop') and routes the agent to relevant siblings ('tạo bởi distill_template', 'xem list_templates'). It stops short of an explicit when-not/exclusion statement, but the workflow context is strong.

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