demote_headers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state that it 'appends Table.DemoteHeaders to the table's M query', which clearly indicates a mutation of the Power Query. However, it lacks details about potential side effects, prerequisites, reversibility, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 concise and well-structured: a leading phrase ('Power Query Use Headers as First Row'), a clear explanation of the action, and the specific technical operation. Three sentences with no wasted words, front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 is relatively simple, and the description covers the core purpose and effect on the M query. However, given no output schema and no annotations, it lacks parameter details and usage context. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to invoke it confidently without additional schema inspection.

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?

The schema has only 33% coverage (only partitionName has a description). The description does not explain the 'table' or 'sessionId' parameters, their formats, or how they relate to the operation. It merely refers to 'the table's M query', providing minimal hint that 'table' is an identifier. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('push the current column names back down into a data row') and names the exact Power Query function (Table.DemoteHeaders). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like promote_headers by explicitly mentioning the direction ('back down'), making the operation unambiguous.

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 you want headers as first row) via the Power Query step name, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives such as promote_headers or other transform tools. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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