set_kpi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source. It explains the behavior (attaching a KPI, how status expressions drive indicators) but does not disclose side effects such as whether existing KPIs are overwritten, permission requirements, or reversibility. This is a moderate level of behavioral 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no redundant wording; every clause adds useful detail.

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 parameterized setter with no output schema or annotations, the description conveys the core purpose, key expression semantics, and default graphic. It omits session-related details and side effects but is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 covers 5/6 params; description adds meaningful context for targetExpression (DAX target to compare), statusExpression (returns -1/0/1 for traffic light), and statusGraphic (default 'Three Circles Colored'), which goes beyond the schema fields.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Attach a KPI to a measure') and explains the target/status expression semantics, clearly distinguishing it from general measure property setters like set_measure_properties.

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 on when to use: when you need to attach a KPI with target/status expressions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose statement effectively guides selection.

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