pbi_update_measure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses partial update semantics and the mode restriction, which is valuable. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but the core behavior is transparent.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by the mode caveat. No wasted words.

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 has 8 parameters and no schema descriptions or annotations, the description covers the essential update behavior and mode constraints but lacks details on prerequisites, error handling, and the purpose of 'request_id'. The output schema mitigates concerns about return values.

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. It explains 'mode' in depth and implies null/omitted fields are preserved, which directly informs optional parameters. However, it leaves 'request_id' unexplained and treats 'table' and 'name' as obvious identifiers.

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 updates an existing measure ('Actualiza una medida existente') and adds the key nuance that unspecified fields are preserved. This distinguishes it from pbi_create_measure and pbi_delete_measure.

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?

It provides clear context on mode selection, explaining that 'both' is temporarily disabled and why, then instructing to choose 'live' or 'pbip'. While it does not explicitly compare with alternative tools, the use case for updating an existing measure is obvious.

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