pbi_disable_auto_date_time

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It explains what happens when deactivating (Power BI removes automatic date tables on reopen) and states the prerequisite (active .pbip project). It does not, however, describe the effect of enabling or any side effects beyond the removal of tables.

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 and well-structured, with the action in the first sentence and supporting details in the second. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool is a simple toggle and the description covers its core behavior, prerequisites, and consequences of deactivation. However, the lack of parameter explanation and the absence of detail about activation leave it slightly incomplete. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 two parameters with 0% coverage, and the description does not explain how the 'enabled' boolean maps to activating/deactivating or what 'request_id' is for. The description adds no value to understanding the parameters, which is a significant gap given the schema provides no descriptions.

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 the tool's function: 'Activa/desactiva Auto fecha y hora' (activates/deactivates auto date/time), and specifies the scope with 'solo modo pbip'. This distinguishes it from other tools and immediately conveys the action on a specific resource.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it is pbip-only and requires an active .pbip project. It also implies a use case by explaining that deactivating lightens the model, which gives a reason to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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