pbi_refresh_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses useful behavioral details: it returns status and duration, reports credential/source errors, and scopes to the open local model. It does not, however, mention potential side effects on unsaved data or prerequisites beyond 'open', so it stops short of full transparency.

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 extremely concise, with a clear front-loaded purpose followed by two shorthand style lines for parameters and return behavior. Every sentence carries useful information, with no wasted words.

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 the presence of an output schema, return values need not be detailed, and the description covers core aspects: local scope, refresh types, optional tables, and error reporting. However, it leaves the 'request_id' parameter unexplained and does not elaborate on the exact meaning of all refresh types (e.g., 'automatic', 'data_only'), which is a moderate gap.

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 description adds meaning for the 'type' parameter by listing allowed values (full, calculate, clear_values, automatic, data_only) and for 'tables' by explaining its optional list semantics. However, the 'request_id' parameter is not mentioned at all, and with 0% schema description coverage, this omission leaves a parameter unexplained.

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 refreshes the local model open in Power BI Desktop, explicitly distinguishing it from the Service. The verb 'refresh' and the resource 'local model' are specific, and the scope (local vs. Service) differentiates it from potential siblings.

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 explicitly says 'modelo LOCAL abierto en Power BI Desktop (no el Service)', providing clear context on when to use the tool. It also outlines the accepted types and optional tables, but does not explicitly name alternatives or provide a detailed when-not-to-use beyond the Service distinction.

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