sigma_convert_workbook_to_report

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds the key behavioral detail that the conversion is one-way and produces a new report, going beyond the annotation information. It does not detail all side effects but adds meaningful context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 output schema exists and the tool has only three simple parameters, the description covers purpose, key behavior, and parameters sufficiently. It lacks some context like prerequisites or permissions, but overall it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 full burden for parameter understanding. It explicitly explains workbook_id, name (required by API), and destination_folder_id (optional with default), significantly enhancing the raw schema.

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 converts a workbook to a report, emphasizing it is one-way and creates a new report. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from related tools like sigma_create_report or sigma_duplicate_report.

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 usage context through 'one-way, creates a new report' but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It gives enough context to infer a typical conversion scenario but lacks direct guidance.

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