pbi_rename_measure

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral aspect: 'Callers must update downstream DAX expressions themselves.' This informs the agent of a manual post-rename step, which is valuable beyond the schema.

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: two sentences with no fluff. The key action and a critical caveat are front-loaded. Every word adds value.

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 rename operation with an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential purpose and a behavioral note. It could mention the return value (e.g., confirmation or updated measure info), but the current text is nearly sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameters. It does not describe the meaning of 'name', 'table', or 'new_name' beyond what the parameter names imply. The agent lacks explicit guidance on these fields.

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 a DAX measure.' It uses a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_create_measure or pbi_delete_measure. The addition about downstream expressions adds precision.

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 implicitly tells when to use it (to rename a measure). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., renaming via pbi_rename_column is unrelated). The context is clear enough for a simple tool.

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