sigma_save_template_from_workbook

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond that, such as whether the template overwrites existing ones, permission requirements, or side effects. This is minimal value beyond the structured annotations.

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 sentence that is concise and directly front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately short for the simplicity of the task, though it could include more detail without losing conciseness.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description lacks essential context about preconditions, parameter dependencies, or any caveats such as folder placement or naming defaults. An agent would need to infer how folder_id and name are used, making the description incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate for documenting the three parameters (workbook_id, folder_id, name), but it does not mention any of them. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, yet the description adds nothing to clarify their usage, optionality, or format.

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 ('Save') and the resource ('a workbook as a reusable template'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_workbook_from_template or list_templates. The verb+resource combination leaves little ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. While the purpose implies a use case, there is no explicit context to help an agent decide between this and related template tools like list_templates or deploy_template_to_folder.

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