Set Conditional Format

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

The description lacks behavioral details such as side effects (e.g., overwriting existing formatting), idempotency, or reversibility. With no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations, the description should disclose that this tool modifies report state. It only specifies parameter mappings, not overall behavior.

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 concise with two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, and the second adds critical parameter details. However, the structure could be slightly improved by grouping parameter explanations or using bullet points.

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?

With 12 parameters and no output schema, the description only covers a fraction of the input space. Key parameters like rules, entity, pageId, colors, isMeasure, property2, and defaultColor are not explained, leaving the agent with incomplete context for correct invocation.

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 description adds value by explicitly mapping comparisonKind values (0=Eq, 1=GT, etc.) and listing formatType options, which are not fully detailed in the schema. This helps the agent understand parameter semantics beyond the schema's enum definitions. However, many parameters (e.g., rules, entity, colors) remain undocumented in the 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 it applies conditional formatting to a visual container background or title font, which is distinct from sibling tools like pbir_format_visual or pbir_set_datapoint_colors. The verb 'apply' and resource 'conditional formatting' are specific and 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pbir_format_visual for simple formatting). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use conditional formatting.

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