rename_column

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states atomicity (one SaveChanges), rollback on failure, and enumerates exactly which DAX references and report bindings are rewritten. This goes beyond typical rename descriptions and fully discloses side effects.

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 dense but every phrase contributes value, explaining both modes and the exact scope of rewrites. It is structured as a single flow from purpose to conditional behavior, but could be slightly more scannable with bullet points or clearer separation of modes.

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 tool with two distinct behaviors, the description covers both fully: propagate=true with atomic rollback and report bindings, and propagate=false leaving references untouched. It does not mention duplicate-name validation or return values, but these are not essential given the complexity level.

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 33%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for propagate (atomic rewrite, rollback) and reportSource (accepts session IDs or PBIR paths), but leaves the basic string parameters (table, column, newName, sessionId) to be inferred from the schema. This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 opens with 'Rename a column,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It further clarifies scope by distinguishing between model-wide propagation and object-only renaming, which differentiates it from sibling tools like rename_columns or rename_table.

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 clearly explains when to use propagate=true vs false and when reportSource applies. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but it provides contextual guidance on the mode selection via the propagate flag and reportSource parameter.

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