pbi_update_measure

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

Annotations provide safety hints (all false), and the description adds substantial behavioral context: partial-update semantics ('lo no especificado se conserva'), the temporary disabling of mode='both', and the dependency of 'live' on Power BI Desktop being open. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 front-loaded, starting with the core purpose in one sentence, then focusing on the important mode complication. It could be more structured, but every sentence contributes useful information 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?

Despite having 8 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description covers the most critical semantic (partial update) and the mode edge cases. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. It omits prerequisites like model selection, but that is likely handled by sibling tools and not essential for this tool's immediate use.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining the 'mode' parameter in depth, including its default and trade-offs. It also clarifies that unspecified optional parameters are preserved, which adds meaning to expression, format_string, etc., even though they aren't individually detailed.

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 'Actualiza una medida existente' (updates an existing measure), which is a specific verb+resource pairing. This distinguishes it from siblings like pbi_create_measure and pbi_delete_measure. It also adds the key nuance that unspecified fields are preserved, which further defines its scope.

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 explains the tool is for updating existing measures and provides detailed guidance on mode selection ('live' vs 'pbip' vs 'auto'), including requirements and default behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives like pbi_create_measure, but the context is clear and no exclusions are needed beyond the mode caveats.

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