sigma_promote_workbook

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

The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the annotations: it creates the tag if it doesn't exist, and tag_color is ignored if the tag already exists. These side effects are not disclosed by the readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations, so the description meaningfully enriches the agent's understanding.

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 brief and well-structured. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second paragraph focuses on the tag_color parameter with all necessary details. Every sentence earns its place, with no 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?

For a simple tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the key parameter nuance. It doesn't explain the exact response format, but the output schema fills that gap. It could mention how this differs from generic tagging, but that omission is minor.

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 thorough semantics for tag_color (allowed values, default, ignored if tag exists) and gives implicit meaning to workbook_id and tag_name via the operation description ('Promote a workbook by tagging it'). This is adequate, though it doesn't explicitly spell out each parameter.

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 purpose: 'Promote a workbook by tagging it (e.g., Production).' It uses a specific verb (promote) and resource (workbook), making the action unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling sigma_tag_workbook, so it loses a point for lacking explicit sibling distinction.

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 when to use the tool—when promoting a workbook to a status like Production. But it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives such as sigma_tag_workbook for general tagging. The usage context is clear but not fully specified.

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