pbi_create_measure

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent. The description adds rich behavioral details: validation that the table exists and the measure doesn't (unless overwrite), the diff return, and the detailed constraints around mode ('both' disabled, Desktop open/closed requirements). This goes well beyond the annotation information.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value: validation, mode guidance, data_category example, and diff return. No filler or redundant text.

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?

Covers preconditions, mode selection, and return behavior, and the output schema handles structure. However, the incomplete explanation of several optional parameters creates some gaps for a 10-parameter tool.

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 'mode', 'data_category' with a concrete example, and 'overwrite' semantics. Required parameters (table, name, expression) are self-evident, but optional ones like format_string, display_folder, description, and request_id are not elaborated, leaving partial compensation.

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 'Crea (o reemplaza con overwrite=true) una medida DAX', with a specific verb, resource, and the overwrite behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_update_measure and pbi_create_calculated_column.

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?

Provides clear context on selecting mode ('live', 'pbip', 'auto') and when each is appropriate, including the 'construyendo desde cero' hint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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