add_dataset_field

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool writes specific XML elements (<DataField> and optional <rd:TypeName>) and refuses if the field name duplicates. However, it omits details like potential side effects on existing fields, validation triggers, or required permissions.

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 three sentences long, each serving a purpose: stating the action, detailing the XML written, and providing usage context. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no 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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a usage scenario but fails to document 3 parameters. It adequately explains the behavior around duplicates and the written elements, but the missing parameter details reduce 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 coverage is only 40% (descriptions for type_name and data_field exist in schema). The description adds valuable examples for data_field (e.g., 'Sales[ProductID]') and explains type_name as .NET type. However, the parameters path, field_name, and dataset_name remain completely unexplained in both schema and description, which is insufficient given the low coverage.

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 appends a data-bound <Field> to a dataset's <Fields> block and explicitly distinguishes it from add_calculated_field by noting that it writes <DataField> rather than <Value>. The verb 'Append' and resource 'dataset's <Fields> block' are precise.

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 advises to use after rewriting the DAX to declare a new column from the query, which gives good context. It also mentions the refusal on duplicate field name. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use or list alternative siblings beyond the one mentioned.

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