Workbooks Verify Workbook Spec

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the return shape ({valid, errors, warnings}), the specific failure mode (dry_run_not_honored), and the consequence that a non-echoed dry run may mean Sigma actually created a real workbook, including named IDs. This is exactly the kind of safety-critical behavior an agent needs and that readOnlyHint alone would misrepresent.

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?

Three tight segments: purpose, mechanism, return/failure contract. Front-loaded with the verb+resource, zero filler, and the most important warning is placed last for emphasis without bloating the text.

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 dry-run validator with a nested spec payload, the description covers intent, mechanism, and failure semantics thoroughly, and an output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out. The remaining gap is guidance on the shape/required fields of the document object, which no structured field covers.

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 adds some value by characterizing what is being validated ('schema structure, syntax, and element layout' of the document spec), but name, folder_id, description, and the nested document object's contents remain undocumented anywhere.

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) applied to a specific resource (workbook code representation specification) with an explicit scoping qualifier ('without saving'). That qualifier alone distinguishes it from workbooks_create_workbook and from workbooks_verify_report_spec, which targets reports rather than workbooks.

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?

'Without saving' and the dry-run framing make the intended use case (validate before creating) clear, but the description never names the sibling it precedes, nor does it state explicitly when validation is unnecessary or mandatory. Clear usage context, no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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