validate_workbook_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behaviors: no files written (dry run) and read-only. It also mentions returning actionable errors. This is sufficient for a validation tool, though it omits details on rate limits or performance.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence states the verb and resource; second adds key behavioral traits. Ideal 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?

Adequate for a simple tool, but lacks detail on output format of 'actionable errors' and prerequisites (e.g., valid JSON schema). Could be more complete given the complex spec parameter.

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 100% with embedded descriptions for the single parameter 'spec'. The tool description adds only the dry-run context, not parameter-specific meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool validates an authoring specification as a dry run, being read-only. It distinguishes from the build tool but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'validate_in_tableau_public', which may also validate.

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 implies use as a pre-build check (dry run) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'validate_in_tableau_public' or when not to use it.

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