select_datasource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether the selection mutates session/workbook state, whether it persists, what happens on an unknown name, or whether it is required before add_calculated_field/add_worksheet. Only the downstream authoring scope is implied.

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?

A single 11-word sentence with no filler, front-loaded on the action. Its brevity is the only thing holding it back, since more content is clearly needed.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a state-setting selection tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the description leaves the agent guessing about the argument value and the effect on subsequent calls.

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 single parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage and the description adds nothing about it (is it a datasource name, a workbook-internal identifier, a file name?). With one undocumented required parameter, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

It states a verb (Select) and resource (datasource) and hints at the downstream effect ('subsequent field and worksheet authoring'). However, 'the source' is never pinned down (datasource by name? by id?) and no sibling is referenced, so an agent cannot tell how this differs from add_hyper_datasource, set_csv_connection, or configure_datasource_blend.

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 clause 'for subsequent field and worksheet authoring' implies this is a prerequisite/setup step before other authoring tools, which is useful implied usage. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no ordering rules, and no named alternative.

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