delete_template_measure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It fully discloses key behaviors: editing DataModelSchema JSON on disk, the requirement of no Power BI Desktop, the fail condition if the measure is missing, and the .bak guard for safety. This is exceptionally transparent for a mutation tool.

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 three concise sentences, all packed with essential information (action, target, mode, failure condition, backup guard). No filler words, well-structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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 delete operation with no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, how it does it (on disk), the no-Desktop constraint, the failure condition, and the backup guard. The agent has enough context to use it safely and effectively. No significant information gap.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it clarifies that pbitPath refers to a closed .pbit template, and the overall operation modifies the on-disk JSON model, which enriches the interpretation of all three parameters. But it doesn't add detailed per-parameter syntax or format beyond what the schema provides.

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 a measure), the target (a table in a closed .pbit template's model), and the underlying mechanism (editing DataModelSchema JSON on disk). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_measure by specifying the .pbit template context and lack of Power BI Desktop.

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 this tool: when working with a closed .pbit template without Power BI Desktop. It also warns that the operation fails if the measure does not exist, which guides the user to verify existence first. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or say 'use this instead of delete_measure', so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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