ms-fabric-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action ('Delete') but doesn't mention permissions required, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to dependent objects. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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 destructive mutation tool with 5 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and complex sibling relationships, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, parameter meanings, or usage context. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description lacks crucial information for safe and correct tool 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 compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'workspace_name', 'table_name', 'measure_names', or the optional semantic model identifiers mean, their formats, or relationships. With 5 parameters completely undocumented in schema, the description fails to provide needed semantic context.

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 action ('Delete measures') and target ('from a table in an existing semantic model'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_measures_to_semantic_model' by specifying deletion rather than addition, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools like 'delete_item'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., semantic model must exist), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'delete_item' which might handle similar deletions. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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