refresh_dataset_fields

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

No annotations provided, so description fully covers behavioral traits: adds missing fields, lists orphans without removal, returns categorical results, uses regex-based detection with warnings. Transparent about limitations like bare EVALUATE warnings.

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?

Description is informative and front-loaded with the primary action, but slightly lengthy with technical details. Still efficient and well-structured.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context about behavior, return structure, and limitations. Could mention conflict handling, but overall complete.

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%, yet description adds no semantic meaning to the two required parameters (path and dataset_name). Only restates they are required, missing an opportunity to clarify expected values or formats.

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?

Clearly states the tool syncs a dataset's Fields block from its DAX CommandText, eliminating manual Report Builder steps. Distinguishes from siblings like add_dataset_field or update_dataset_query by focusing on field synchronization from query shape.

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?

Implicitly describes usage after query rewrites and that caller decides on orphans, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives among the many sibling tools for field manipulation.

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