set_datasource_connection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool sets the DataProvider to SQL and accepts flexible workspace_url formats. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing connections), required permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. Some behavioral context is given but not comprehensive.

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, consisting of two sentences that immediately convey the core purpose and key parameter details. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate for the main behavior but leaves gaps. The 'path' parameter is not explained, and there is no information about return values or success indicators. The description covers essential aspects but could be more complete for a mutation tool.

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 beyond the input schema by clarifying that 'workspace_url' accepts both bare workspace names and full URLs, and by specifying that DataProvider is set to SQL. This supplements the schema, which only lists parameter types and minimal descriptions. The parameter 'path' lacks schema description, and the description does not cover it, but overall the added information is helpful.

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 uses the specific verb 'Repoint' and identifies the resource as 'a DataSource at a Power BI XMLA endpoint'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_data_source' or 'rename_data_source' by focusing on changing the connection endpoint. The mention of URL format and DataProvider adds clarity.

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 implies when to use this tool (to repoint a datasource to Power BI) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Usage is inferred rather than clearly stated.

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