Workbooks Promote Workbook

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the tag is created if it doesn't exist, implying an upsert-like side effect. It still omits whether promotion replaces an existing promotion tag, whether prior tags are removed, and what permissions are required, so it clears the lowered bar without being rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the non-obvious side effect. Nothing is padded and every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. But for a three-parameter mutation with 0% schema coverage, the description should at minimum identify workbook_id and tag_color and differentiate itself from the tag_workbook sibling; those gaps leave it only minimally complete.

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 carries the full burden. It only gestures at tag_name via the example 'Production' and says nothing about workbook_id (the target resource) or tag_color (which has a default of 'cyan'), leaving two of three parameters entirely 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 description states a specific verb and resource ('Promote a workbook') and clarifies the mechanism ('by tagging it'), which prevents the agent from guessing at a hidden promotion workflow. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very close siblings workbooks_tag_workbook and workspace_create_tag, leaving the agent to guess which one implements 'promotion'.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The tag example ('Production') hints at intent but the description never says why an agent would choose promote over the sibling tag_workbook tool.

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