validate_workbook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does so effectively. It discloses key behavioral traits: non-blocking/advisory nature, that deviations are normal due to Tableau Desktop practices, and that workbooks will likely open regardless of findings. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but covers the essential operational context well.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It begins with the core purpose, then provides crucial context about the check's advisory nature, followed by clear parameter and return value documentation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 (schema validation), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, limitations, parameter usage, and return value nature. The output schema handles return format details, so the description appropriately focuses on operational context.

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 clear semantics for the single parameter: 'file_path: Path to a .twb or .twbx file to check. If omitted, checks the currently open workbook (in memory).' This explains the parameter's purpose, file types, and default behavior, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Run an informational XSD schema check on a workbook (2026.1 schema).' It specifies the exact action (schema check), resource (workbook), and schema version, distinguishing it from siblings like analyze_twb or profile_twb_for_migration which have different analytical purposes.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'This is a non-blocking, advisory check only.' It clarifies that Tableau Desktop is the true validator and deviations don't indicate broken workbooks, establishing clear boundaries for appropriate usage versus alternatives like actual validation tools.

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