pbi_delete_measure

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds significant behavioral context: it explicitly warns that the operation is destructive and requires confirm=true, clarifies that 'live' needs Desktop open while 'pbip' needs it closed, and explains the 'auto' fallback logic. This provides valuable operational detail not inferable from the annotations alone.

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 paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose and then explains mode behavior. It contains no filler, but the mode explanation is slightly verbose and could be tightened. It is reasonably concise and well-structured for the complexity involved.

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 description covers the key aspects needed to use the tool safely: destructive nature, confirm requirement, mode selection with prerequisites, and default behavior. With an output schema present to describe return values, the description is sufficiently complete. Minor gaps like error handling or missing-measure behavior are not critical.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'mode' and 'confirm' parameters in detail, including the disabled 'both' option and the default behavior. The 'table' and 'name' parameters are not described, but their names are self-explanatory. 'request_id' is not explained, but it is a common internal field. The description adds enough value over the schema to earn a 4.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Elimina una medida' (Deletes a measure). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_create_measure, pbi_update_measure, and pbi_rename_measure, which handle other operations on measures.

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 explicit guidance on when to use different values of the 'mode' parameter (live, pbip, auto), including the note that 'mode=both' is temporarily disabled and the default 'live' requires Power BI Desktop open. It also advises using 'auto' or 'pbip' when building from scratch. However, it does not mention alternatives like 'update measure' or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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