pbi_delete_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It correctly notes that deleting a table removes associated relationships and measures, which is a critical side effect. However, it does not mention potential impacts on visuals or other dependencies, nor does it state if the operation is reversible or requires confirmation. The disclosure is useful but incomplete.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that deliver the core purpose and key side effect without any unnecessary words. The main action is front-loaded in the first sentence, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description covers the primary purpose and a major side effect. However, it lacks broader context such as when deletion is appropriate, whether the operation is destructive and irreversible, or how it integrates with other tools like pbi_list_tables. The presence of an output schema is not utilized in the description. Overall, it meets minimal completeness but has notable gaps.

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?

The input schema has one parameter, 'name', with no description (0% coverage). The tool description does not elaborate on what the 'name' parameter expects, such as the table name format or case sensitivity. Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by adding parameter meaning, leaving the agent with only the parameter name to infer its role.

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 deletes a table, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pbi_delete_column, pbi_delete_measure, and pbi_delete_relationship by specifying the target object. The addition of side effects (removing relationships and measures) further clarifies the scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pbi_rename_table or pbi_delete_column. There is no mention of prerequisites, safe conditions, or scenarios where deletion is appropriate. The agent receives no help in selecting this over other delete or modification tools.

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