unpivot_other_columns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the underlying operation (appending Table.UnpivotOtherColumns to the M query) which indicates a modification. It does not cover error cases, reversibility, or side effects on existing query steps, but the core behavior is adequately described.

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 primary purpose, and includes the key technical detail (Table.UnpivotOtherColumns) and the parameter format without unnecessary words.

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 moderately simple transformation tool, the description captures the essential behavior and key parameter. It could mention the effect on the existing M query (e.g., new step appended) and whether partitionName is required, but these are either present in schema or inferable. The absence of annotations and output schema is compensated by the clear functional description.

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 50% (only keepColumns and partitionName have descriptions). The description reinforces keepColumns as comma-separated but adds little beyond what the schema already states. It does not explain table, sessionId, or partitionName, relying on schema for some parameters and common sense for others.

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's function: keep listed columns and unpivot every other column into Attribute/Value pairs. It also distinguishes it from siblings by highlighting robustness to new columns, which signals this is the Table.UnpivotOtherColumns variant.

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 want to keep specific columns and unpivot the rest. The robustness to new columns is a useful selection criterion. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like unpivot_columns or unpivot_all or mention when not to use it.

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