pbi_document_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses a key side effect: it saves the file to 'outputs/'. It also lists what the documentation includes. However, it does not explain the behavior of the 'source' parameter, overwrite policy, or whether the operation modifies the model. The write location is disclosed, but other behavioral aspects are missing.

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 three short sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by content specifics and output location. Every sentence adds value with 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 has an output schema, so return values are likely covered there. However, the description omits the meaning of the 'source' parameter and does not position the tool relative to other documentation/analysis siblings. It provides a good high-level overview but leaves gaps that matter for correct use.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description only indirectly mentions 'include_quality' via 'advertencias de calidad' and does not explain the 'source' parameter at all. With two undocumented parameters, the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema metadata.

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 purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Genera documentacion completa del modelo en Markdown.' It enumerates the contents (tablas, columnas, medidas, relaciones, jerarquias, roles RLS, advertencias de calidad), which distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like pbi_model_summary or pbi_list_relationships.

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 the tool is for generating complete documentation, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives like pbi_generate_technical_documentation or individual listing tools. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are given, leaving usage context to inference.

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