sigma_swap_report_sources

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a mutation. The description adds the distinction between connection and table-level swaps, but does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or reversibility. With annotations present, this remains at a baseline 3.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word contributes. No fluff or redundancy.

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 is sufficient for basic usage but leaves gaps: the structure of the mapping objects is unspecified, and there is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or when to use sibling swap tools. Given an output schema exists for return values, the remaining gaps prevent a higher score.

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 mapping parameters are open arrays of objects with no descriptions. The description compensates by distinguishing connectionMapping from sourceMapping, adding crucial semantics. However, it does not explain the expected structure of the mapping objects, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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 ('Swap') and resource ('data sources on a report'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling swap tools for workbooks, templates, and data models. It also breaks down the two swap levels, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to use each mapping type: connectionMapping for connection-level swaps, sourceMapping for table-level swaps. This provides clear context for parameter selection, though it does not mention alternative sibling tools by name, leaving the 'vs alternatives' aspect implied rather than explicit.

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