pbi_update_measure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that unspecified fields are preserved, which is key for a partial-update tool. It also explains the temporary disabling of mode='both' and the system requirements for each mode (Power BI Desktop open/closed). This adds meaningful context beyond the basic update operation.

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 well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose and key behavior (preservation of unspecified fields). The second paragraph focuses on the mode restriction, which is a critical caveat. There is no redundant information, and the text is front-loaded.

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 tool's 8 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: purpose, partial-update behavior, and mode selection. An output schema exists, so return values don't need describing. It could mention potential errors or requirements (e.g., measure must exist), but the description is otherwise adequate for an update operation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does add important meaning for the 'mode' parameter, explaining the allowed values and that 'both' is currently disabled. It also implies that optional parameters (expression, description, format_string, display_folder) are preserved if not provided. However, it doesn't detail each parameter, leaving the schema to carry most of the semantics.

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 states 'Actualiza una medida existente' (Updates an existing measure), which is a specific verb+resource. It also clarifies 'Lo no especificado se conserva' (anything not specified is preserved), adding detail about partial updates. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_create_measure and pbi_delete_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 makes it clear this tool is for existing measures ('medida existente'), implying it should not be used for creating new ones. It also provides explicit guidance on choosing between 'live' and 'pbip' modes, including the caveat that 'both' is disabled. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond the measure existence.

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