set_shared_expression

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Create or update' without disclosing upsert behavior, whether existing expressions are overwritten, validation of M code, session requirements, or side effects. The mutation nature is clear but the consequences and prerequisites are not.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource, then clarifies scope efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks information about return values, side effects, prerequisites (e.g., an open session), error behavior, and whether existing expressions are replaced. The agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior from this description alone.

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% (only 'm' is documented). The description adds context that the expression can be a parameter, function, or staging query, which helps interpret 'name' and 'm', but it does not explain 'sessionId' or provide detailed parameter semantics. It insufficiently compensates 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 uses a specific verb ('Create or update') and clearly identifies the resource ('shared Power Query expression') with explicit scope ('parameter, function, or staging query in the Queries pane'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_shared_expression, rename_shared_expression, and set_partition_m.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_m_parameter, define_udf, or set_partition_m. The description implies it is for shared expressions but does not state exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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