rename_table

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes atomicity (one SaveChanges, rollback on failure), the exact references rewritten (DAX, M, report bindings), the difference between propagate=true and false, and what carries over automatically (sort-bys, hierarchies, relationships, translations). This is exemplary transparency.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement and then delivers dense, high-value details without redundancy. Every clause adds meaningful information about propagation, atomicity, or scope. Despite its length, the structure is logical and efficient 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, low schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers default behavior, edge cases (propagate=false), report-specific rewrites, and automatic carry-overs. The lack of output schema is not a gap since the tool likely returns nothing beyond a success signal, and the description covers the crucial aspects for an agent.

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 only 40%, but the description enriches the understanding of the two most complex parameters (propagate and reportSource) beyond the schema. The table and newName parameters are self-evident from the tool name, though sessionId is not mentioned. The description compensates well 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 opens with 'Rename a table,' a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rename_column, rename_page, and rename_shared_expression. The scope is further clarified by the detailed propagation semantics, leaving no doubt about the tool's purpose.

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 on when to use the tool, especially the default propagate=true behavior and the optional reportSource parameter. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or list when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent effectively.

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