add_time_intelligence_calc_group

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses several behaviors: creation of specific calc group items, ordinals, a format-string on YoY%, and setting DiscourageImplicitMeasures at model level. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting an existing group, permissions required, or reversibility.

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, dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action ('Create a time-intelligence calculation group') and then lists specific behaviors. It could be slightly more structured with clearer separation of items, but every part adds value.

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 tool has moderate complexity with 5 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main behavior and side-effect (DiscourageImplicitMeasures) but omits prerequisites like the table needing to be single-column (though schema mentions it) or how dateTable/dateColumn are used. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about what the tool creates (items, format string, model-level flag) but does not elaborate on parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The 'table' parameter is clarified by the schema as 'the (single-column) table that becomes the calc group', and the description's 'on a table' aligns with that.

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: creating a time-intelligence calculation group with a specific set of items (Current/MTD/QTD/YTD/PY/PYTD/YoY/YoY%). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_calculation_group (generic) and add_time_intelligence_measures (measures, not calc groups) by listing the exact outputs.

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 when to use the tool (when you need a standard time-intelligence calc group with these predefined items) but does not explicitly provide alternatives or exclusion criteria. Context is provided by the item list, but no direct comparison with related tools like add_calendar_based_time_intelligence.

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