add_sheet

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the mutation ('modifies the analysis definition') and the automatic backup, which is real behavioral value. However it omits permissions requirements, whether sheet names must be unique, and whether the operation is idempotent — gaps that matter for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the risk warning. No filler. Slightly terse given the mutation risk, but structurally sound.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the mutation risk plus automatic backup are covered. For a 2-parameter tool this is largely complete, though permission/constraint context could be richer given the absent annotations.

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 100% and both parameters (name, analysis_id) are documented in the schema; the description adds no format, constraint, or uniqueness details beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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+resource ('Add a new sheet to a QuickSight analysis'), which clearly distinguishes it from the delete_sheet, rename_sheet, and replicate_sheet siblings. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 on when to add a sheet versus rename_sheet, replicate_sheet, or add_visual to an existing sheet, and no prerequisites or preconditions stated. The only contextual note is that a backup happens automatically, which is not usage guidance.

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