add_calculated_table

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (create) without mentioning side effects, prerequisites (e.g., open session), existence checks, or what happens to the model. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient context.

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, front-loaded sentence with a concrete example. Every word contributes, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary information.

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?

The description conveys the core purpose but leaves gaps around required session context, parameter semantics for name/sessionId, and potential errors. Without an output schema, a bit more detail could improve completeness, but for a relatively simple create operation it is minimally adequate.

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 coverage is low (33%), with only 'dax' described. The description clarifies 'dax' as a DAX table expression, but provides no meaning for 'name' or 'sessionId'. It does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 creates a new calculated table from a DAX table expression, with a concrete example (Calendar via CALENDAR()) that illustrates the intended use. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_calculated_column or add_measure by specifying 'table' as the resource and 'DAX table expression' as the source.

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 example implies usage for calendar-like tables, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_date_table or add_table_from_m. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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