set_measure_properties

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: omitted properties remain unchanged, renames propagate atomically across the model and reports, and propagate=false renames only the object. This is highly transparent about 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 well-organized: purpose, when-to-use, and behavioral details. Each sentence carries necessary information, though it could be split into bullets for readability.

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 complexity of rename with propagation and report rewriting, the description covers all critical aspects: what properties are set, update semantics, propagation behavior, and alternative tools. It is fully sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 63%, so description adds needed meaning. It explains hidden, description, newName, and adds detail on propagate and reportSource beyond the schema. However, table/measure/sessionId are left to self-evident naming, which is acceptable.

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 states the tool sets a measure's metadata (hidden, description, newName) and explicitly distinguishes it from update_measure. It specifies the exact resources and actions, making it unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: 'Use update_measure for the DAX / format string / display folder.' It also explains when propagate and reportSource are relevant, covering when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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