pbi_update_relationship

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'update properties' without explaining side effects like refreshes, permission requirements, or if the relationship must exist. This leaves critical gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and key updateable properties. No wasted words.

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 has 9 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks information on how to use parameters, return values, or behavioral nuances. Many aspects are left unexplained.

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 compensate. It lists only four properties (cardinality, direction, is_active, name) but the schema has nine parameters including from_table, to_table, from_column, to_column, new_name. The description does not explain these or clarify their roles.

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 'update' and the resource 'existing relationship', and lists specific properties (cardinality, direction, is_active, name). It distinguishes from siblings like pbi_create_relationship and pbi_delete_relationship.

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 tool name and description imply it is for modifying existing relationships, and the sibling tools provide context. However, explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (like creating or deleting) is missing.

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