pbi_rename_measure

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false), the description discloses detailed behavioral context: it compiles first, writes in a single transaction, updates the TMDL header, DAX expressions, and visual.json, returns a list of touched items, and warns about qualified references not being rewritten. This is rich, honest disclosure consistent with the annotation that it is a write operation without being destructive.

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 four dense sentences that cover the action, rationale, technical process, limitations, and prerequisites. It is front-loaded with the main verb and every sentence adds essential information without fluff.

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 complex rename-update tool, the description covers prerequisites (pbip only, Desktop closed), the transactional process, safety (dry_run default), output (list of touched items), and limitations (qualified references, warnings). Since an output schema exists, return values need no further explanation; this is complete enough for an agent to use 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 coverage is 0%, but the description compensates partially: it explains dry_run defaults to true and returns a plan without writing, and it contextualizes old_name/new_name via examples like `[old_name]` and `Tabla[old]`. However, it does not explicitly define table or request_id parameters, leaving some parameter semantics to inference.

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 'Renombra una medida actualizando TODO lo que la referencia', a specific verb (rename) and resource (measure) plus the key scope (updating all references). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_update_measure or pbi_delete_measure, making the tool's unique purpose immediately evident.

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 states when to use it: for renaming measures safely instead of manually renaming, which would break visuals/measures silently. It also specifies a clear prerequisite: only works on .pbip projects and requires Desktop closed. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use map.

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