validate_workbook_api

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: it does not publish, the file is NOT stored on the server, it requires a specific API/server version, and it only supports .twb. It also spells out the return shape. It stops short of describing auth requirements beyond env_path, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first line, then adds scope, exclusions, prerequisites, Args, and Returns. Every section is relevant, though the Args/Returns blocks make it longer than a one-line tool needs.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does ({success, validation_level, valid, errors, warnings, error}). Combined with the prerequisites and file-type constraints, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 and it does: it explains validation_level's two values ('syntactic' = XSD only vs 'semantic' = full, default) and env_path's precedence over process environment variables, plus twb_path's expected file type.

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?

States a specific verb (validate), resource (.twb workbook), and mechanism (Tableau Cloud REST API, no publish). It further distinguishes itself from local XSD validation by scoping semantic validation (formulas, field references, data source connectivity), so an agent can differentiate it from the validate_workbook sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('Only .twb files are supported') and names the alternative for the excluded case ('For .twbx files, use upload_workbook'). It also gives prerequisites (Tableau Cloud June 2026+ / Server 2026.2+, API 3.29+) and clarifies that the file is not stored on the server.

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