build_workbook

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that files are written to the spec's output directory and notes the determinism of .twb versus .twbx. However, it lacks details on authorization, overwrite behavior, error conditions, or prerequisites beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with 'PRIMARY TOOL', and every sentence provides essential information (purpose, output location, determinism). No superfluous content.

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 complexity of the input schema and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, error handling, the build process, or prerequisites, leaving the agent with potential gaps for correct invocation.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters (spec and overwrite) and all nested properties. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 is the 'PRIMARY TOOL' and specifies the action 'Compile a specification into .twb and .twbx with Hyper extracts'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like validation, inspection, and publishing by its primary build role.

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 labels the tool as 'PRIMARY' but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like validate_workbook_spec or inspect_local_workbook. No when-not-to or exclusions are mentioned.

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