pbi_validate_pbix_persistence

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It says 'validate that a patched PBIX still contains a readable, persistent report layout' but does not disclose what the validation entails (e.g., file access, checking layout integrity), side effects, or requirements. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 efficient sentence (10 words) with no redundancy. However, it could be expanded to include essential context without becoming verbose.

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 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the parameters, the return value, or the typical usage context (e.g., after patching). Sibling tools suggest a workflow, but the description fails to situate itself within that workflow.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any of the three parameters (pbix_path, extract_folder, require_security_bindings_removed), leaving their meaning unclear. For example, extract_folder's role is not implied by the description or tool name.

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 (validate) and the specific object (patched PBIX report layout). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pbi_validate_pbix_reopen, which validates reopening, making the purpose unambiguous.

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_validate_pbix_reopen). It does not mention prerequisites or typical workflow context, such as being used after pbi_patch_layout.

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