pbi_create_measure

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

With no annotations, the description discloses validation (table exists, measure not exist unless overwrite), the diff return, and the mode constraints requiring Desktop open/closed. It does not mention permission requirements or broader side effects, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 a compact paragraph with each sentence providing distinct information: purpose, validation, optional data_category, diff output, and mode restriction. No filler or repetition; front-loaded with the main action.

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 10-parameter schema and mode complexities, the description covers the key aspects: validation, overwrite behavior, mode selection, and data_category example. It also mentions the diff return, complementing the output schema. It could mention error cases or prerequisites, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning for data_category (with ImageUrl example), mode (disabling both), and overwrite (replacement), but leaves format_string, display_folder, and other parameters unexplained. Still, the core parameters are obvious from the schema titles, so the added semantics is moderately helpful.

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 opens with 'Crea (o reemplaza con overwrite=true) una medida DAX', clearly stating it creates or replaces a DAX measure. It also specifies validation behavior and naturally differentiates from update/delete siblings by focusing on creation with overwrite semantics.

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?

It provides explicit usage context for the mode parameter: 'Elige live o pbip' and explains why mode='both' is disabled. It also clarifies when overwrite=true is relevant, but does not explicitly name alternative tools like pbi_update_measure for comparisons.

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