add_query_parameter

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the auto-stripping of '@' for PBIDATASET datasets, the normalised flag, and the force_at_prefix override. This provides good insight into the tool's behavior beyond its basic function.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and includes a detailed second paragraph on behavior. It is efficient without being verbose. Minor improvements could make it even more concise.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects and parameter nuances. However, it lacks information on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., dataset existence), and return values beyond the normalised flag. It is reasonably complete but has gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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, so the description must compensate. It explains the naming convention for the 'name' parameter and the role of value_expression via example. However, it does not explicitly describe all parameters (path, dataset_name), relying on their names. The explanation adds some value but is not fully comprehensive.

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 'Add a <QueryParameter> binding to a dataset's query' and provides an example of wiring report parameters into DAX. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_parameter or update_query_parameter.

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 when to use the tool (to wire report parameters into DAX) and provides an example. It also covers the rare override case with force_at_prefix. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like update_query_parameter.

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