pbi_add_conditional_formatting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains internal storage details and that it writes the canonical shape, but does not disclose side effects like overwriting existing formatting, required permissions, or behavior on unsupported visual types.

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 well-structured with a clear one-liner followed by a docstring-style parameter list. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the internal technical details could be seen as extra.

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 (10 parameters, 5 required) and no annotations, the description covers core functionality but misses explanations for several required parameters and does not mention the output or return value, even though an output schema exists.

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 description adds meaning for some parameters (column_name case-insensitivity, format_type options, color hex strings, icon_set choices) but omits explanations for required parameters like extract_folder, page, and visual_id, despite schema coverage being 0%.

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 (add) and the resource (table/matrix conditional formatting), listing the three supported types. It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pbi_set_visual_format_property.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pbi_set_visual_format_property). No prerequisites or context provided for when conditional formatting should be applied.

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