Workbooks Run Workbook Agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: token consumption and the confirm=True requirement. It still does not detail side effects or what exactly gets created or modified during agent execution.

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 front-loaded with the core action and scoped constraints. Three short sentences and two parameter notes contain no filler; every line 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?

For a 9-parameter execution tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition covers the operation type, token cost, confirm requirement, messages structure, and version targeting. However, it omits semantics for several optional and required parameters, and does not describe what the caller receives beyond the existence of an output schema. Adequate but with clear 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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It documents messages structure (role/content) and version_tag_name default, plus confirm=True, but leaves workbook_id, agent_id, metadata, max_turns, max_output_tokens, and response_format entirely unexplained. It partially compensates by covering the most critical input parameter.

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: 'Run an in-workbook AI agent with conversation messages.' This is clearly distinct from the sibling list_workbook_agents tool and other workbook CRUD tools. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 clear usage context: it is a mutating/execution operation, consumes LLM tokens, and requires confirm=True. It does not name explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but no close-runner sibling exists for this exact operation.

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