sigma_swap_workbook_sources

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context—it doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or reversibility of the swap. It relies on the openWorldHint to imply broader impact. This is adequate but not rich; it's neither contradictory nor highly informative.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary verb and object. Every sentence provides value, and there is no wasted wording or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Given the moderate complexity of a swap operation and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the essential distinction between connection-level and table-level swaps. It's not overly verbose, but it could briefly mention prerequisites or effects on dependent workbook elements. Still, it's sufficiently complete for an agent to select the tool confidently.

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 adds crucial meaning by explaining the two mapping parameters: 'connectionMapping' for connection-level swaps and 'sourceMapping' for table-level swaps. This compensates well for the bare schema, though workbook_id is left unexplained (but its purpose is self-evident from its name).

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 function: 'Swap data sources for a workbook.' This includes a specific verb (swap), resource (data sources), and scope (for a workbook). It distinguishes from sibling tools like sigma_swap_report_sources and sigma_swap_data_model_sources by explicitly naming workbooks.

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 clear context that this tool is for swapping workbook data sources and even offers guidance on parameter selection: 'Use connectionMapping for connection-level swaps, sourceMapping for table-level swaps.' However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like sigma_swap_report_sources or sigma_swap_template_sources, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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