pbi_column_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what dependencies are found (measures, calculated columns, relationships, hierarchies) and that it indicates if something breaks. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, nor does it describe the output format or behavior for edge cases. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core function and immediately followed by the practical use case. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the main purpose, dependency types, and use case effectively. The only missing context is the meaning of the 'source' parameter and more explicit read-only behavior, but overall it is complete for a dependency-analysis tool.

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 schema shows three parameters (table, column, source) with 0% schema coverage from the description. The description does not explain any parameter semantics, especially 'source' (which defaults to 'live'). Since the schema alone provides minimal context, the lack of parameter explanation is a notable gap.

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's purpose: 'Que usa una columna: medidas, columnas calculadas, relaciones y jerarquias' (what uses a column: measures, calculated columns, relationships, and hierarchies). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like pbi_measure_dependencies (which focuses only on measures) and pbi_list_relationships (which focuses only on relationships).

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 explicitly provides usage context: 'Util antes de ocultar o eliminar una columna: dice si algo se rompe' (Use before hiding or deleting a column: it tells if something breaks). This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not name alternatives or specify when not to use it.

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