pbi_hide_columns

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure. It details validation before write ('Valida todas las entradas antes de escribir: si alguna tabla o columna no existe, no se modifica nada'), atomicity ('TMDL se escriben en una sola transaccion y el modelo en vivo con un solo SaveChanges'), and result semantics ('count' incluye duplicados, 'results' en el mismo orden). It also discloses the temporary mode='both' restriction and why.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds necessary detail (validation, transaction, mode caveat) without fluff. The structure is logical: purpose, parameter format, behavior, mode restriction.

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 no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers most key aspects: batch operation, validation, atomicity, mode restrictions, and result counts. It is missing semantics for 'hidden' and 'request_id', but the provided details are comprehensive for a moderately complex tool with an output schema present.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'columns' structure ('lista de {"table": ..., "column": ...}') and the mode constraints ('Elige live o pbip'). However, it does not explain the 'hidden' or 'request_id' parameters, which are not self-evident from schema alone.

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 opens with 'Oculta/muestra VARIAS columnas como un solo lote' (Hide/show SEVERAL columns as a single batch), which clearly states the verb, resource, and batch scope. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool pbi_set_column_visibility, which likely handles single columns.

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 explains the batch use case ('VARIAS columnas como un solo lote') and provides explicit guidance on mode selection: 'la politica estricta: 'live' necesita Power BI Desktop abierto y 'pbip' lo necesita cerrado... Elige 'live' o 'pbip'.' It does not explicitly name alternatives like pbi_set_column_visibility, but the batch context is clear.

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