Reload Report

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

The description clearly warns that unsaved work is lost, even adding detail about modeling-MCP measures not flushed by autosave. Annotations already mark destructiveHint: true, so the description significantly adds behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the core action then adding crucial safety and usage details. Every sentence earns its place with 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 only one parameter, no output schema, and annotations providing destructiveHint, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, usage, safety, and parameter behavior adequately.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter. The description adds value by explaining the semantic difference between confirm=true (execution) and false/omitted (warning), which is not fully captured in the schema's description.

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 reloads a report by closing and reopening the .pbip file. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning it closes PBIDesktop.exe, which is unique among the listed siblings.

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 explains that confirm=true is required to proceed, and when false/omitted it returns a save-first warning. It provides clear context for use but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives beyond the save-first flow.

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