pbi_rename_column

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

The description notes that callers must update dependent DAX, which is a behavioral implication. However, no details on reversibility, permission requirements, or error behavior. Given no annotations, the description carries the full burden but is insufficient.

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?

Very concise, two sentences. The main action is front-loaded. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity.

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 simplicity of the tool (rename a column), the description is minimal. However, it lacks context on failure scenarios, prerequisites, and behavior when the column does not exist. With an output schema available, the description should at least hint at the return value.

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 0%. The description does not explain the three parameters (name, table, new_name) beyond their names. For example, it doesn't clarify that 'name' is the current column name or specify the expected format.

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 action (rename) and the resource (column). However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like pbi_rename_measure or pbi_rename_table; the distinction is implied by the resource name but not explicitly clarified.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., pbi_rename_table, pbi_rename_measure). The warning about dependent DAX is a constraint but not a usage guideline.

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