pbi_set_power_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full burden. It states 'write or update' implying mutation, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether refresh is triggered, whether previous M expression is overwritten, permissions required, reversibility). The 'refresh_after' parameter hints at behavior but is not explained.

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 a single sentence, very concise. However, it lacks structure and does not front-load critical information. It is acceptable but minimal.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it fails to cover the operation's implications, such as success criteria, error conditions, or any context around the parameter defaults. The tool's purpose is clear but not complete for an AI agent to use confidently.

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 add meaning. It only loosely references 'table partition', leaving 'm_expression', 'refresh_after', and 'partition_name' undefined. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to clarify format or usage specifics.

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 verb (write/update) and the resource (M expression on a table partition). It distinguishes from siblings like pbi_get_power_query (read) and pbi_list_power_queries (list). However, it lacks precision on what constitutes a 'partition' in the Power BI context.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., table must exist), no exclusions, and no mention of when not to use it. The sibling tools are many, but no differentiation is offered.

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