set_tableauserver_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It indicates that this tool modifies the workbook datasource (a write operation), but does not disclose side effects, such as whether existing connections are overwritten or if the workbook must be open. It does not mention authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether the change is reversible. A score of 3 is fair as it conveys the basic action but lacks depth.

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 concise sentence, front-loading the key action. It contains no fluff. However, it could be slightly longer to include important details about when to use it or parameter hints without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 params, no annotations, no output schema description), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values (output schema exists but not described), prerequisites, or post-conditions. However, the tool's purpose is relatively straightforward, and the output schema may provide structure. A score of 3 reflects that it meets minimum viability but lacks completeness.

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 does not explain any parameter semantics. The tool has 6 parameters (4 required), and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. However, the parameter names (server, dbname, username, table_name, directory, port) are somewhat self-explanatory. Baseline is 3 due to low coverage, and the description fails to compensate, but the names help slightly.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to configure a workbook datasource to use a Tableau Server connection. It specifies the verb 'configure' and the resource 'workbook datasource with Tableau Server connection'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like set_hyper_connection or set_mysql_connection, which are similar but for different connection types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_excel_connection, set_hyper_connection, or set_mysql_connection. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or when it is appropriate to switch connections. The agent is left to infer usage from the connection type.

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