Workbooks Verify Report Spec

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the dryRun: true mechanism, the {valid, errors, warnings} result shape, and a concrete failure mode (dry_run_not_honored) where Sigma may have created a real report and the error names the leaked ID. This is exactly the safety context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, followed by the dry-run mechanism, return shape, and the failure caveat. Efficient overall; the backtick-heavy formatting of the last paragraph is slightly dense but each 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 spelled out, yet the description still summarizes them helpfully. The remaining gap is parameter documentation for a nested spec object, which matters for a 3-required-param call.

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, including a nested free-form 'document' object. The description hints that the document is a 'report code representation specification', but name, folder_id, description and the document's expected shape are all left 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?

States a specific verb (verify) and resource (report code representation specification) and adds the crucial qualifier 'without saving', which distinguishes it from workbooks_create_report. Sibling distinction is implicit rather than named, so it stops 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?

'Runs report creation as a dry run' implies this is a pre-flight check before workbooks_create_report, but the description never says when to call it or when to skip it, and no alternative tool is named. Usage is inferable by a competent agent but not stated.

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