pbi_set_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and sequencing, omitting details about side effects, required permissions, error handling, or idempotency. This minimal disclosure leaves the agent unaware of important behavioral traits such as whether calling it multiple times is harmless or what happens on invalid paths.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that directly communicates the core action and a critical usage instruction. It is front-loaded with the action and essential context, with no extraneous words. Every element earns its place, making it highly efficient for an AI agent.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and the description adequately conveys its purpose and usage order. However, it lacks details about parameter validation, error behavior, and prerequisites (e.g., whether a connection to the model server is required). For a simple initialization tool, the description is minimally viable but could be more complete to support robust agent usage.

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 provides only the parameter 'path' with no description (0% coverage). The tool description implies that 'path' refers to a .pbip file location, but it does not elaborate on format (absolute vs relative), supported protocols, or typical values. Since the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation, the agent lacks sufficient guidance on how to specify the path correctly.

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 action: 'Point the model server at a Power BI Project (.pbip).' It also includes the crucial note to 'Call this first,' which distinguishes it as a setup step from sibling tools that operate on backups, measures, or models. The verb 'point' is slightly vague, but the context makes it understandable.

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 advises 'Call this first,' indicating it is a prerequisite for other operations. This provides clear guidance on when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but given the sibling tools, alternatives are implied as later operations.

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