validate_workbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that errors are informational and that Tableau itself may produce deviations, which sets expectations for false positives. It does not detail performance or side effects, but the tool is read-only validation.

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 well-structured with a summary line, behavior note, and clear Args/Returns sections. It is concise at 9 lines, though the second paragraph could be slightly tighter.

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 single parameter, no annotations, and presence of an output schema (which handles return format), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage nuance, parameter semantics, and expected output.

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%, but the description compensates by documenting the sole parameter 'file_path' with its type and behavior (null validates current open workbook). This adds meaning beyond the schema's anyOf/null/default.

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 verb (validate) and resource (workbook), specifies the schema version (2026.1), and distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_twb' or 'diff_template_gap' by focusing on schema conformance rather than analysis or migration.

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 description explains when to use (validate against schema) and provides context about errors being informational versus indicating structural problems. It does not explicitly mention alternatives among siblings but implies this is for schema validation specifically.

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