workiva_create_anchor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'create' and lists parameters; it does not explain side effects, whether the operation is destructive, or how revision prevents conflicts. The mention of 'Current table revision string' implies concurrency control but does not clarify consequences.

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 a concise purpose sentence, but the trailing argument list largely duplicates the schema with minimal added value and contains a typo. It is not bloated, but the redundant parameter list and error prevent a higher score.

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?

The tool has six parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not described. The description gives no context about what a source anchor is, when to use it, or what the return value contains. This is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's role and behavior.

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 compensate. It provides explanations for all six parameters, including 0-based indexing and that table_id comes from workiva_spreadsheet_sheets. However, there is a typo where start_column is described as 'Stop column', which reduces reliability and could mislead an agent.

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 'Create a source anchor on spreadsheet cells,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like workiva_create_destination_link, but the action is clearly scoped to creating a source anchor, which is a distinct concept.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a spreadsheet or how anchors relate to links, nor does it point to sibling tools for other scenarios.

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