pbi_delete_measure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature, the mandatory confirm flag, and the mode-specific behavior, including why 'both' is disabled due to conflicting Desktop state requirements. This is valuable context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't mention dependency impacts or reversibility.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence is very concise, and the following sentences provide essential warnings and usage details. The second sentence is slightly long but packs necessary information without unnecessary fluff.

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 destructive nature and absence of annotations, the description covers the most critical aspects: confirmation requirement, mode selection rules, and the temporary 'both' restriction. The presence of an output schema handles return value expectations. It lacks some details about prerequisites or side effects, but the core usage is well specified.

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 has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description adds meaning to 'confirm' (must be true) and 'mode' (choose 'live' or 'pbip', with 'both' disabled), which is critical. However, 'table', 'name', and 'request_id' remain unexplained, relying on their self-evident names. Partial compensation only.

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 'Elimina una medida' (deletes a measure), specifying the verb and resource. It also marks the operation as destructive, distinguishing it from non-destructive measure-related tools like pbi_create_measure or pbi_update_measure.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: the operation requires confirm=true, and mode='both' is temporarily disabled, with instructions to choose either 'live' or 'pbip'. It explains the operational constraints (Power BI Desktop open/closed) but does not discuss alternative tools or when not to use this tool.

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