add_dynamic_title_measure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the measure's internal logic (SELECTEDVALUE with All/multiple fallback, template placeholder, optional template), which goes beyond the schema. It doesn't mention side effects or error handling, but the core behavior and the follow-up binding action are clearly communicated.

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose, but the first sentence is long and packs several concepts. The example and the binding instruction are useful and earn their place. Overall it is efficient, if slightly dense.

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 measure-authoring tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the formula pattern, fallback behavior, template usage, an example, and the next step (bind_dynamic_title). It misses some details like what the tool returns (e.g., the measure name) and the sessionId context, but the core usage is complete enough for an agent to 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?

The schema covers 83% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by providing a concrete example (column Dim_Product[Category], template "Sales - {value}"), clarifying how the column and template parameters interact. It also explains the {value} placeholder, which is not in the schema, adding value beyond the structured fields.

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 purpose: authoring a DYNAMIC TITLE text measure using SELECTEDVALUE with a fallback and optional template. It specifies the verb 'author', the resource (measure), and the technical approach, and distinguishes itself from generic measure tools and from bind_dynamic_title.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool (to create a dynamic title measure) and explicitly directs the user to bind_dynamic_title for the report-side step. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, but the inclusion of a concrete example and the reference to the sibling tool provides solid usage guidance.

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