pbi_delete_measure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly warns 'Operacion destructiva' and mandates confirm=true, and it explains the constraints of mode='both' and the live/pbip prerequisites. This is substantive disclosure, though it stops short of detailing consequences like dependency breakage or irreversibility.

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 concise and well-structured: it front-loads the purpose and safety warning, then explains the mode restriction in a compact way. Every sentence adds necessary context without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, output schema present), the description covers the essential aspects: deletion, confirmation requirement, and mode selection. The output schema covers return values, so those are not needed in the description. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does explain 'confirm' and 'mode' in detail, but table, name, and request_id are left to inference from their names. This partial compensation is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 'Elimina una medida' (Deletes a measure), a specific verb and resource that clearly identifies the tool's function. It further distinguishes it from siblings like pbi_create_measure and pbi_update_measure, and clarifies destructive behavior.

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 provides clear operational context: it is destructive and requires confirm=true. It also explains the mode parameter explicitly, noting that mode='both' is disabled and advising users to choose 'live' or 'pbip' based on Power BI Desktop state. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like pbi_update_measure.

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