extract_report_level_measures

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that measures are added to their host table, format/folder is preserved, existing names are skipped (idempotency), and it returns the promoted measures. This is rich behavioral detail beyond what the schema or annotations provide.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action, then details the process with a colon and clauses. Every part adds value without redundancy, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 explains the process, idempotency, and return value, but does not clarify the role of sessionId (e.g., whether the .pbix must be open or if the operation targets a session model). Given no output schema and no annotations, this is a minor but notable gap in an otherwise comprehensive description.

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 only 50% (pbixPath is described, sessionId is not). The description adds no extra meaning to either parameter; it merely repeats the schema's pbixPath info and omits sessionId entirely. It does not compensate for the missing sessionId semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'Promote' with a clear resource ('report-level measures into the model as real measures') and describes the exact source and behavior. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_measure or add_report_measure by focusing on extracting from report definition config.modelExtensions[].entities[].measures[].

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 usage context (promoting report-level measures from a .pbix file) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. It provides a clear 'when' context but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools.

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