add_percent_of_parent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'Generate' but does not state whether this mutates the model, creates a new measure, or returns a result. It lacks details on side effects, reversibility, permissions, or error behavior, which is critical for a likely mutation tool.

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: the first states the purpose, the second explains the key parameter with an example. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no redundant words or filler. 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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate input semantics but omits behavioral context such as where the measure is created, naming conventions, overwrite behavior, or what output to expect. It is not severely incomplete, but users/agents get limited guidance on the full impact of invoking the tool.

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 75% (sessionId undocumented). The description adds a concrete example for hierarchyColumns ('Product[Category], Product[Subcategory], Product[Product]') that clarifies the expected syntax beyond the schema's generic 'comma-separated Table[Column]' description. This is a meaningful addition, though other parameters (table, baseMeasure) receive no extra explanation.

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: 'Generate a percent-of-parent measure over a hierarchy.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'percent-of-parent' concept distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_percent_of_total. The example hierarchy further reinforces the purpose.

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 implies usage for generating percent-of-parent measures over hierarchies, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as add_percent_of_total or state when not to use this tool. No when/when-not guidance is provided, only the general context of hierarchy-based calculations.

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