add_time_intelligence_measures

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and adds meaningful behavioral context: fiscalYearEnd drives fiscal *TD, pbipFolder enables offline TMDL writes with collision-checked appends, and no engine is needed. It does not cover error cases or prerequisites, but it is transparent about core behaviors.

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 dense but not overly long; it front-loads the tool's purpose and packs essential details (measure types, fiscal year logic, offline mode) into two sentences. Every phrase earns its place, though it runs on with multiple clauses.

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 no annotations, the description explains key workflow options (live vs. offline), fiscal year input, and collision handling. It could mention return values or prerequisites, but it covers the most critical contextual aspects well.

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 100%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by explaining how fiscalYearEnd drives fiscal *TD and that pbipFolder vs sessionId are mutually exclusive for offline vs live execution. This enhances the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 generates a full time-intelligence measure set off a base measure, listing specific measure types (YTD/QTD/MTD, PY/PM, MoM/YoY, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_time_intelligence (likely single measure) and add_time_intelligence_calc_group (calc group variant), and includes the offline PBIP mode.

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 clearly communicates when to use the tool: to generate a comprehensive set of time-intelligence measures. It also explains the target=pbip alternative (offline vs. engine) via the pbipFolder vs sessionId note, but it does not explicitly mention scenarios where a sibling tool would be preferred.

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