Sigma Verify Workbook Spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds value by specifying exactly what is checked (schema structure, syntax, element layout) and reinforces the non-saving behavior. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose ('verify ... without saving') and immediately follows with the scope of validation. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately 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?

Although an output schema exists, the description does not explain how to interpret the result or what the required parameters mean. For a tool with a nested document object and three required parameters, the description is insufficient for an agent to construct a correct call. It lacks parameter guidance and return-value context, leaving significant gaps.

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 description does not explain any of the four parameters (name, folder_id, document, description). The term 'workbook code representation specification' hints that the 'document' parameter might contain the spec, but no parameter-specific guidance is provided. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema explanations.

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 states a specific verb ('Verify'), a clear resource ('workbook code representation specification'), and a scope ('without saving'). It also lists what is validated (schema structure, syntax, element layout). This distinguishes it from the sibling sigma_verify_report_spec by explicitly targeting 'workbook', so an agent can pick the right tool without confusion.

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 implies the tool is for checking a spec before saving ('without saving'), but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it say when not to use it. No sibling alternatives like sigma_verify_report_spec are referenced. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or routing guidance.

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