format-excel-range-border

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, indicating a mutating operation. The description adds that it sets one border side, which is a useful behavioral detail, but it doesn't mention side effects on existing borders, reversal, or permission requirements. The description does not contradict 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a practical tip. There is no wasted text, and the tip is directly relevant to the tool's main concept of side selection. It 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, some required, the description covers the most critical nuance (sideIndex) and how to compose multiple calls. The schema handles the rest. There is no output schema, so return value explanation isn't needed. However, given the destructive annotation, it could have mentioned the confirm gate, but that is covered in the confirm parameter description, so it's acceptable.

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 89%, so most parameters already have descriptions. The description adds value by explicitly listing the valid values for sideIndex (EdgeTop, EdgeBottom, etc.) and explaining how to use it for multiple sides. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Value for the 'sideIndex' path segment.' The body parameters (color, style, weight) are well-covered in the schema, so no need to repeat.

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 states 'Format an Excel range border' which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling formatting tools (fill, font) by specifying 'border', and the tip clarifies it sets one border side. However, it doesn't explicitly state that it sets the style, color, and weight of that side, which would make it even more precise.

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 gives usage guidance on how to outline all four edges by calling once per side, and explains the sideIndex parameter selects the side. However, it does not mention alternatives like format-excel-range or when to use this tool versus those siblings. There is no explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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