sigma_create_workbook_from_template

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the result includes real charts/tables, which is useful functional context. However, it does not disclose operational details like permission requirements, default naming behavior, or what happens on failure, leaving the description to carry only moderate additional value.

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 short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the primary action, and the second adds a key differentiator (visuals). Every word earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present and simple parameters, the description is mostly complete for selecting and invoking the tool. It explains the unique value proposition and leaves parameter details to the schema. It lacks explicit guidance on how to obtain template_id/folder_id, but sibling tools exist for that, so this is a minor gap.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (template_id, folder_id, name). It only says 'from a template,' which does not add meaning beyond the schema's property names. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a workbook from a template') and explicitly differentiates from alternatives by noting it is the only programmatic way to get charts/tables. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like sigma_create_workbook.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when you need a workbook with real visuals), and implicitly contrasts it with other creation methods. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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