sigma_export_workbook

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds useful behavioral details: empty element_id exports the first page, and layout only applies to pdf/png. It does not disclose potential side effects, asynchronous behavior, or permissions, so transparency remains moderate.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the main action followed by brief parameter-level notes. Every line adds value with no redundant filler.

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?

The description covers core export behavior, formats, and fallback logic, and the output schema helps with return value expectations. However, it does not address async execution, file delivery mechanisms, or relationship to sibling export tools, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 coverage, the description compensates well by listing allowed values for format, layout, and explaining element_id fallback behavior. workbook_id is not described but is self-evident from the tool name and 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 action ('Export a workbook element') and specifies the resource and scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling sigma_export_report, but the workbook context and element/fallback behavior make the purpose reasonably distinct.

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 practical guidance on element_id omission and format/layout constraints, which implies usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like sigma_export_report or sigma_export_and_download.

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