add_whatif_parameter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and largely succeeds: it discloses that the tool creates a disconnected calculated table and a measure that picks up slider selections via SELECTEDVALUE. It does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing objects, but the core behavior is clearly explained.

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 and every clause earns its place. It packs relevant technical details and usage guidance without wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 description is complete enough for a moderate-complexity tool: it explains what gets created, how to use it, and references the standard pattern. It lacks explicit return-value information, but no output schema is expected for a creation tool, and the usage context compensates.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how 'name' becomes the measure name ('[<name> Value]') and that min/max/increment are used to generate the series. This helps the agent connect parameters to the tool's behavior.

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: to create a WHAT-IF parameter with a disconnected GENERATESERIES table and a SELECTEDVALUE measure. It uses a specific verb ('Create') and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from siblings like add_measure or add_calculated_column.

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 explicit usage steps: drop the table's column on a slider slicer and reference the value measure in DAX. It gives clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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