Workbooks Convert Workbook To Report

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

Annotations already declare the write (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) profile, and the description helpfully clarifies 'one-way' so the agent knows the source workbook is preserved rather than mutated. Beyond that it says nothing about permissions, failures, or side effects, which is acceptable but thin against an already-covered safety profile.

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 one-line purpose with the 'one-way, creates a new report' parenthetical is front-loaded, and the three parameter glosses each earn their place. No filler.

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?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and annotations covering safety, the definition gives enough: source, required name, and destination default. Missing only the explicit alternative-selection guidance.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: it explains workbook_id as the source, marks name as required by the API, and documents destination_folder_id as optional with its default ('My Documents'). Format details (ID syntax) are absent, but the semantics per parameter are clear.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('convert a workbook to a report') and adds the key qualifier that it is one-way and produces a NEW report, which distinguishes it from create_report and duplicate_report. It doesn't name a sibling directly, so an agent must still infer the boundary, but the purpose is 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 implies the use case (produce a report from an existing workbook) and notes the one-way nature, but never says when to prefer this over workbooks_create_report, workbooks_duplicate_report, or workbooks_save_template_from_workbook. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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