delete_shared_expression

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple delete by explaining the refusal mechanism with referencer list, the condition (other M documents referencing it), and the rationale (preventing dangling references that break the mashup silently). This is rich, context-aware transparency.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and every word earns its place. It states the action first, then the critical safety behavior without unnecessary fluff.

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 destructive operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the main purpose and the critical edge case (refusal on references). It does not specify the success return or permission requirements, but these are less critical given the clear safety behavior. It is largely complete for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 50%: only 'name' has a description, while 'sessionId' is undocumented. The tool description adds context about what constitutes a shared expression (parameter / staging query), slightly enriching the 'name' parameter. However, it does not explain 'sessionId' or provide additional parameter guidance, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 action (Delete) and the specific resource (shared Power Query expression), with a parenthetical clarifying it covers parameters and staging queries. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_measure or rename_shared_expression.

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 want to delete a shared expression) and provides a key prerequisite: the tool refuses if references exist, so users must handle references first. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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