pbi_update_measure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly notes that omitted fields are kept (partial update behavior), which is helpful. However, it does not disclose permission requirements, side effects, or response format, so transparency is moderate.

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 sentences with zero wasted words. Every part contributes meaning, front-loading the purpose and key behavioral trait (partial update).

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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks prerequisites, error handling, return value details, and examples. The sibling tools provide context but are not referenced. The description is incomplete for robust agent decision-making.

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%, but the description mentions 'DAX/format/folder', providing meaning for three of five parameters. It does not explain the role of 'name' and 'table' (which are identifiers), nor does it give format syntax. The added value is modest, justifying a score of 3.

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 it updates an existing measure and specifies which attributes can be updated (DAX, format, folder). It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like create_measure and delete_measure due to the explicit 'Update' verb.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pbi_create_measure. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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