pbi_set_relationship_direction

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It successfully discloses that changing to 'single' can affect totals, recommends post-change verification, and explains the disabled mode='both' behavior and the live/pbip destination constraints. It does not mention permissions or exact error handling, but the key side effects are covered.

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 core statement, followed by parameter guidance, a critical warning, and a clarification of a common confusion. Every sentence earns its place; there is no padding or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core action, parameter choices, side effects, and an edge case. It does not explain how the relationship is identified or error behavior, but the output schema covers return values, and the essential usage context is present. Slightly more detail on prerequisites would make it complete.

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 `direction` parameter values ('single' vs 'both') and the `mode` parameter semantics, including the temporary disabling of mode='both' and the live/pbip split. `from_table` and `to_table` are self-explanatory from their names, and `request_id` is a standard field, so the main ambiguous parameters are covered.

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: 'Cambia el filtro cruzado de una relacion' (changes the cross-filter of a relationship). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_create_relationship 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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (changing relationship direction) and provides important caveats: warns about altering totals when switching to 'single' and advises verifying the report. It also clarifies not to confuse direction='both' with mode='both'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria.

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