set_measure_name_aliases

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It conveys only that aliases are set (an implied mutation) but says nothing about whether existing aliases are overwritten, what permissions are needed, or what happens to measures not in the mapping.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than tight – the brevity stems from missing information rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations, 0% schema coverage, and a nested mapping object, the description is far too thin to let an agent invoke it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters. It never explains what 'mapping' should contain (source name to alias string) or confirms that worksheet_name selects the worksheet scope, leaving both parameters semantically opaque.

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 names a verb ('Alias') and a resource ('Measure Names members'), and adds the qualifier 'including table calculation measures'. However, 'actual Measure Names members' is domain jargon that is not clarified, and there is no scoping to a worksheet despite the worksheet_name parameter, so an agent cannot fully pin down the operation from the description alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. In a large sibling set containing set_worksheet_caption, configure_custom_label, and set_worksheet_title, no routing guidance is given.

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