Sigma Update Workbook Contents

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

Annotations already mark this as not read-only; the description adds value by explicitly calling it a mutating operation and requiring confirm=True plus document_version as a concurrency guard. This goes beyond readOnlyHint and informs the agent of side effects and safety requirements. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences carry all necessary information, with the purpose stated first and the mutating/guard requirements immediately after. No filler or repeated schema content; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is complex (nested contents object, 3 required params, no parameter docs) and the description only covers the concurrency/confirmation aspect. It lacks detail on how to obtain or structure the JSON document specification and does not point to related verification/export tools, though the output schema reduces some burden on describing return values.

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 adds meaning for contents ('JSON document specification'), document_version (concurrency guard), and confirm (must be true). However, it does not define the structure of contents or clarify workbook_id, leaving important payload semantics undocumented.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('workbook') and characterizes the input as a code representation/JSON document specification. It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from sigma_update_report_contents by resource type, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools.

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 no when-to-use decision context or alternatives; it never mentions related tools such as sigma_verify_workbook_spec, sigma_get_workbook, or sigma_export_workbook. It provides operational prerequisites (confirm=True, document_version) but not guidance on choosing this tool versus another.

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