report_create_definition

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it is a 'long-running operation' and it reads local PBIR definition files. This is useful and not contradicted by the 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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the long-running behavior is stated up front.

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?

The description labels the operation as long-running but does not say whether it returns immediately, provides an operation ID, or requires polling. Since there is no output schema, this missing completion/monitoring guidance leaves an agent uncertain how to invoke and track the call.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description only refers generally to 'the specified directory' and 'PBIR definition files', adding little beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Create a new report in a workspace'. It also names the method ('Reads PBIR definition files from the specified directory'), which distinguishes this from report_get_definition, report_update_definition, and report_clone.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: creating a new report from PBIR definition files. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives like report_clone, but the 'new report' and 'definition files' framing makes the intended usage reasonably unambiguous.

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