sigma_deploy_template_to_folder

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

The description adds context about the two-step process (instantiate then optionally swap sources) beyond the annotations, which already indicate the operation is not read-only or destructive. However, it does not disclose what artifacts are created, whether the operation is transactional, or what 'sources' refers to concretely, leaving behavioral gaps.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key concept ('Full deployment') and then expands with a concrete explanation. Every word adds value, with no redundant fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is too brief for a tool with 4 parameters, 3 required, and zero schema descriptions. It fails to explain the 'name' parameter, the semantics of connection_mapping, prerequisites, or expected outcomes. The combination of instantiation and source swapping is complex and needs more elaboration to be fully usable.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides some meaning by linking template_id to 'template' and folder_id to 'folder', and 'swapping its sources' likely relates to connection_mapping. However, the required 'name' parameter is unexplained, as is the structure of connection_mapping, so partial compensation only.

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's function with a specific verb ('instantiate') and resource ('template into a folder'), and distinguishes it from simple alternatives like create_workbook_from_template or swap_template_sources by describing it as a 'full deployment' that optionally swaps sources. This is precise and differentiates the tool.

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 as the 'full deployment' option but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sigma_create_workbook_from_template or sigma_swap_template_sources. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so the agent must infer context from the tool name and description.

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