Elements Swap Workbook Sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond this: no note on reversibility, permissions required, or what happens to existing source bindings when swapped.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the parameter disambiguation. No wasted words for a three-parameter tool.

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 described. However, for a mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no parameter descriptions, the definition leaves the mapping-object structure and any post-swap side effects undocumented.

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 carries the burden. It clarifies that connection_mapping targets connection-level swaps and source_mapping targets table-level swaps (though using camelCase names that differ from the schema's snake_case), but says nothing about the structure or format of the mapping entries.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Swap data sources for a workbook' tells the agent exactly what is mutated. It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling swap tools (datasets_swap_data_model_sources, datasets_swap_report_sources, elements_swap_template_sources) by scoping to a workbook, though it never names those alternatives.

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 explains which parameter to use for connection-level vs table-level swaps, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling swap tools or any prerequisites. This is parameter guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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