validate_formula

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one key trait: the check runs "without mutating the active workbook," i.e. it is non-destructive. It says nothing about what happens on an invalid formula (error vs. returned diagnostics) or whether the active workbook must be open, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 compact sentence with no filler, and the non-mutation guarantee is stated immediately. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 2-parameter validation tool with 0% schema coverage the description leaves too much open: the role of field_name, the meaning of "formula" vs "function names," and failure behavior are all unaddressed.

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% and neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description hints that function names are checked, which loosely maps to the required "formula" param, but the optional "field_name" parameter is never mentioned and neither param's expected format is clarified. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 gives a specific verb ("Check") and resource ("Tableau function names"), which narrows the tool beyond its ambiguous name validate_formula. However, it is unclear whether the tool validates a full formula expression or only function-name validity, and it never distinguishes itself from the nearby validate_workbook and validate_workbook_api siblings. Adequate but with a real scope ambiguity.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling validators (validate_workbook, validate_workbook_api) that an agent would otherwise confuse this with. The agent is left to infer the trigger condition entirely.

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