update-excel-range

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

Annotations already indicate destructive=true, so the description need not repeat. It adds value by disclosing the tool can set values, formulas, or number format, and clarifies it works on any range (not just tables). The constraint about inner-array count matching column count is also a behavioral detail. No contradictions with 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 moderately concise (~70 words) and well-organized: starts with purpose, then a tip, then usage patterns, then a constraint. Each sentence carries value, though a slight trim could improve. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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 no output schema, the description covers the critical aspects for invocation: what it does, how to format the body, the address format, and usage patterns. It does not explain the confirm gate, but that is documented in the schema parameter. It omits response details but that is acceptable for a mutation tool without an output schema.

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?

The schema descriptions for parameters are mostly generic ('Value for the address path segment'), so the description compensates by explaining the body format ({ values: [['v1','v2','v3']] }) and giving address examples. It also clarifies the column-count requirement. This adds meaningful context beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Update an Excel range' and expands on what updates are possible (values, formulas, number format). It explicitly notes it does NOT require a formal Excel table, distinguishing it from table-specific tools like update-excel-table-row. This is specific and unambiguous.

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?

It gives explicit usage patterns: append (target next empty row), update (single cell), and prepend-style edits (read, concatenate, write back). It provides address examples like 'A172:H172' and 'H42'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when NOT to use it beyond the table implication, so it falls short of full 5.

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