plan_workbook_repairs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates the tool's non-mutating nature, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('prioritized next steps') but does not disclose output format, side effects, or how the tool operates beyond the purpose.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids unnecessary detail.

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 description omits critical information such as what the 'prioritized next steps' look like, how parameters like sample_limit affect the output, and how the tool fits into the broader audit-repair workflow. Since there is no output schema, the description should provide more context but does not.

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% and the tool description mentions none of the three parameters (filepath, header_row, sample_limit). The description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving their roles entirely unexplained.

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 'Turn workbook audit findings into prioritized next steps' clearly states the tool's purpose as a planning/analysis operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like apply_workbook_repairs (which actually applies fixes) and audit_workbook (which produces the findings), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 phrase 'workbook audit findings' implies usage after an audit and before repairs, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It relies on the reader to infer the workflow context.

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