format-excel-range

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (it modifies) and destructiveHint=true (potentially destructive). The description adds some context by specifying the properties that are set and clarifying that font/fill/borders are excluded. However, it does not mention the confirm gate or any side effects like overwriting existing formatting. It repeats the destructive nature implicitly through the property list but adds limited new behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with a direct purpose, then a valuable tip with the most actionable info (required path param and body properties), and ends with exclusions pointing to siblings. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 relatively simple operation, high schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the description is fairly complete. It tells the agent what to set, what not to set, and where to go for other formatting. It does not explain return values, but there is no output schema and the operation likely returns a simple success indicator. It omits mention of the confirm parameter (when gate enabled), but that appears in the schema and may be a general pattern across tools. Overall adequate.

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 coverage is high (88%), but the description adds crucial meaning by listing which body properties are actually applied (horizontalAlignment, verticalAlignment, wrapText, columnWidth, rowHeight) and explicitly stating that font, fill, and borders are NOT set here. The address example ('A1:E5' or 'Sheet1!A1:E5') clarifies the format required. This goes beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 what the tool does: 'Format an Excel range' and specifies it applies rangeFormat properties. It explicitly lists which properties are set (horizontalAlignment, verticalAlignment, wrapText, columnWidth, rowHeight) and distinguishes it from sibling tools (format-excel-range-font, format-excel-range-fill, format-excel-range-border) by stating what it does NOT handle. This distinguishes it effectively.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Apply rangeFormat properties to a specific range' and lists the relevant properties. It also gives clear exclusions: 'Font, fill, and borders are NOT set here; use format-excel-range-font, format-excel-range-fill, and format-excel-range-border for those.' This provides both when and when-not guidance with named alternatives.

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