set_data_coverage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals the default behavior (first partition) and the meaning of the DAX expression, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or error behavior. It adds some value but has gaps.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the action and rolls in the purpose and default behavior. No wasted words, though it could be split for readability without losing value.

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 set operation without an output schema, the description covers what, why, and the default, which is largely sufficient. It omits prerequisites like requiring an existing partition or handling of invalid DAX, but these are implied by the domain. Complete enough for the complexity.

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 50%, with table and sessionId lacking descriptions. The description clarifies partition default and daxExpression purpose, but does not compensate for the undocumented sessionId and table params. Adds meaning but incomplete.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('partition's data coverage definition'), plus explains the DAX boolean and hybrid table context. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_partition_m and set_partition_mode.

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?

Provides clear context: use for hybrid Import+DirectQuery tables to let in-range queries use the cheaper imported partition. It implies when to use but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which aligns with 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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