pbi_create_html_visual

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses a side effect (registers custom visual) and a dependency (measure created separately). However, it does not address error conditions, overwrite behavior, or required permissions, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clarifying note about measure creation and DAX implementation. It is appropriately sized and every sentence contributes meaning, though the code example could be seen as slightly extra.

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 covers the main workflow and differentiation, but leaves critical details about `position` semantics and page targeting unspecified. With a 5-parameter schema, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, more context is needed to correctly invoke the tool without additional domain knowledge.

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 0%, and the description only elaborates on `html_measure`, giving an example format. It leaves `page`, `position`, `title`, and `request_id` unexplained; `position`'s nested structure is especially ambiguous. This is insufficient compensation for the coverage gap.

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 creates an 'HTML Content' visual that renders HTML/SVG returned by a measure, using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes this tool from generic creation tools like pbi_create_visual and pbi_add_custom_visual by focusing on the specific HTML Content visual type.

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?

Provides workflow guidance by explicitly stating that the measure is created separately with pbi_create_measure and that the custom visual is registered if not already present. It implies this tool should be used specifically for HTML Content visuals, though it does not formally list alternatives or exclusions.

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