transpose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does add that the operation appends Table.Transpose to the table's M query, which is a useful side-effect detail. However, it does not mention limitations, reversibility, or error conditions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant or irrelevant words. Every sentence 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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks context beyond the basic operation. It does not mention prerequisites, what the parameters mean in practice, or expected return values. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, more detail would be needed for full completeness.

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 partitionName has a description). The description does not explain the table, sessionId, or partitionName parameters, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no extra semantics are provided.

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 transposes a table by flipping rows and columns, and it specifies the underlying operation (appending Table.Transpose to the M query). This distinguishes it from sibling transformation tools like unpivot or pivot.

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 implies usage—when you want to transpose rows and columns—but it does not explicitly state prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it. There is no comparison with sibling tools like pivot_column or unpivot_columns.

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