fuzzy_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key side effect: 'Appends Table.FuzzyGroup to the table's M query,' which signals a mutation of the query. It also explains the optional threshold parameter. However, it does not discuss return format, permissions, or error behavior, which would enhance transparency further.

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 front-loaded: it starts with the purpose, then the side effect, and then parameter specifics. It packs a lot of essential information into three sentences without waste, making it easy for an agent 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core aspects: purpose, side effect, parameter syntax, and option values. It does not cover return values or error scenarios, but those are often unnecessary when output schema is absent. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it specifies the exact comma-separated formats for keyColumns and aggregations, enumerates the supported operations (Sum, Count, Average, Min, Max, CountDistinct, All), and explains the threshold range (0..1). Schema coverage is only 67%, and the description compensates for the uncovered parameters and adds detail to described ones.

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 as 'Power Query Fuzzy Group By' and states its function: collapsing rows with approximately equal key values (typos/casing) into groups with aggregates. This specific verb and resource, along with the mention of fuzzy matching, distinguishes it from siblings like group_by and fuzzy_merge.

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 clear context: it's for fuzzy grouping with approximate equality (typos/casing) and describes the aggregate options. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as preferring exact group_by or fuzzy_merge for different scenarios. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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