add_partition

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the new partition has never been refreshed and must be refreshed before saving the .pbix. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent anticipate follow-up actions.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a useful mode note and refresh warning. It contains no redundant phrases and every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how the mode works, and a critical refresh warning. It lacks details on prerequisites or return values, but these are not central for a partition-add operation and the description is sufficiently complete 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?

Schema description coverage is 60% (m, mode, name documented). The description adds contextual meaning for 'm' (M partition) and 'table' (existing table), and clarifies the mode's default engine behavior. However, it does not clarify 'sessionId' or provide additional semantics for other parameters, so it only partially compensates for undocumented 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 uses a specific verb 'add' with a clear resource ('M partition') and provides an example ('split a fact by year'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_partition_m, delete_partition, and refresh_partition by explicitly stating it adds a new partition.

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 a clear use case (adding a partition to an existing table, e.g., splitting by year) and explains the mode parameter with its optionality and default engine behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when to use this tool.

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