sigma_swap_template_sources

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

Annotations are present (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the word 'swap'. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, or impact on dependent entities, which would be valuable for a write operation.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and parameter usage, making it very concise and well-structured.

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 the basic purpose and parameter roles, but lacks details about the structure of the mapping objects, whether both mappings can be used together, or any edge cases. With an output schema present, return values are covered, but the operational context is minimal.

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?

The description explains the purpose of the two mapping parameters ('connection-level swaps' vs 'table-level swaps'), which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types. However, the naming in the description (camelCase) does not match the schema property names (snake_case), and the required template_id is not explained at all.

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 verb 'Swap' and the resource 'data sources on a template', which distinguishes it from sibling tools for other resource types (workbooks, data models, reports). The specificity is high and 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?

The description gives guidance on choosing between connectionMapping and sourceMapping, but does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternative swap tools for other resources. No prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios are mentioned, so it lacks clear usage context.

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