add_table_from_m

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the table won't populate until refresh_table is run, which is valuable behavioral context. However, it omits details like whether the table overwrites an existing one, permissions required, validation behavior, or side effects on the model.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by a necessary post-condition. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain what happens on success, how the new table relates to the model, whether the name must be unique, or what sessionId refers to. The refresh tip is helpful but insufficient.

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 only 33% (only 'm' is described). The description clarifies that the 'm' parameter is a Power Query expression, but it adds nothing about 'name' or 'sessionId'. Since coverage is low, the description needed to compensate but only partially does.

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+resource ('Create a new import table') and specifies the method ('from a Power Query (M) expression'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like add_calculated_table (calculated table) and add_table_visual (visual).

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool (creating an import table from M) and provides an explicit follow-up step ('Run refresh_table afterwards to populate columns'). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the import-table scope is clear enough.

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