extract_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral detail: match_prefix rewrites prefix-matched occurrences (example with C:\Data). However, it does not mention whether the operation is destructive, reversible, or how it affects multiple queries (the queries parameter). It also doesn't mention the dry_run behavior, though that is partially self-evident. The example adds value but leaves many behaviors undisclosed.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose immediately, and the second provides a clarifying example. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. The structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers the core behavior and one parameter's behavior (match_prefix) but leaves source, parameter_name, queries, and dry_run entirely unexplained. An agent would need to infer or guess the semantics of these parameters, which is a significant gap for successful invocation.

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 explain all parameters. It explains the concept of 'value' (hard-coded text) and gives a concrete example for 'match_prefix', but it does not clarify 'source', 'parameter_name', 'queries', or 'dry_run'. The description adds some meaning for match_prefix but leaves most parameters unexplained, which is insufficient given the lack of schema descriptions.

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: converting a hard-coded text value into a Power Query parameter and referencing it everywhere. It specifies the resource (text values like path, server, URL) and the action (parameterize). It is distinct from sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative; the purpose is self-evident enough to avoid confusion.

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 implies usage: when you have hard-coded text values and want to parameterize them. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like replace_in_queries or apply_transform, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is implicit rather than explicit.

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