pbi_create_calc_group

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 that items use SELECTEDMEASURE() patterns and that order becomes display order. However, it does not specify if the action is destructive, what happens on duplicate names, or error handling. Basic behavioral info is present but incomplete.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, the second details key behavioral aspects of items and ordering. No extraneous words, front-loaded with essential information.

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 has three required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the basic creation purpose and items structure but omits meaning of the precedence parameter, error scenarios, and return value. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the items parameter format as a list of objects with name and dax attributes, adding meaning beyond the schema. For name and precedence, no additional detail is given beyond the schema definitions. Overall, partial parametric guidance.

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 'Create a calculation group table', identifying the verb and resource. It also specifies the structure of items and behavior of ordering, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pbi_create_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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pbi_create_measure. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and description, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use is given.

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