Workbooks Update Workbook Contents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so 'Mutating operation' is largely redundant. The valuable addition is the optimistic-concurrency contract: confirm=True plus a document_version integer to prevent overwriting concurrent changes, a behavioral detail not present in the schema. It still omits whether contents fully replaces or merges existing content.

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 core action and followed by the mutation/concurrency constraint. Every sentence earns its place with 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the write/concurrency contract but leaves gaps on replace-vs-merge behavior and required permissions for a mutation tool.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It meaningfully explains confirm and document_version (required flag, concurrency guard), but workbook_id and contents are only gestured at via 'code representation (JSON document specification)' with no format or replacement semantics.

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 (update a workbook) and clarifies the input form (code/JSON document specification). It implicitly separates itself from workbooks_update_report_contents and workbooks_restore_workbook_version, but never names a sibling or contrasts behavior, so it falls short of a 5.

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 states the invocation condition that confirm=True and a document_version are required, which is real usage guidance. However, it gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to alternatives like restore_workbook_version, verify_workbook_spec, or update_report_contents.

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