pbi_create_persistent_report

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

With no annotations, the description discloses several behaviors: it creates a persistent file, injects sentinel rows for string store consistency, and applies style presets via another tool. However, it does not mention potential side effects like file overwrite, authentication needs, or resource impact, which are important for a creation tool.

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 structured with separate paragraphs for key parameters and is front-loaded with the main purpose. While it is somewhat lengthy, most sentences add value, and the structure aids readability.

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 tool's complexity with 10 parameters, the description is incomplete. It explains two edge-case parameters but fails to describe core required parameters like output_path, tables, and measures. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for missing input parameter descriptions.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It covers prime_string_store and style_preset group well, but omits descriptions for 8 other parameters (e.g., output_path, tables, measures, relationships), leaving a significant gap in understanding required inputs.

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 creates a persistent PBIX with DataModel, DAX measures, relationships, pages, and native visuals. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools for individual components.

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 guidance on when to enable/disable prime_string_store and mentions style_preset application. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this comprehensive tool versus building reports piecewise with sibling tools, leaving usage context unclear.

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