import_blocks_from_excel

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: full-batch undoability via one Ctrl+Z, dry-run reporting of insert/update/error per row without touching the drawing, the confirm requirement for updates, per-row errors not aborting the batch, and blank cells being ignored rather than clearing existing attributes. That is rich, non-redundant behavioral context for a destructive write tool.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and then organized by the QUANDO USAR heading, the safe-flow sequence, and a parameter rundown; the inline example call is useful. It is a dense wall of text with no line breaks or sub-headings and some parameter prose could be trimmed, so it is efficient but not maximally scannable.

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-format detail is unnecessary, and annotations already cover the safety profile. The description closes the remaining gaps that matter for a destructive 11-parameter importer — confirmation gate, dry-run semantics, per-row failure handling, blank-cell behavior — leaving nothing material an agent must infer before calling it.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 11 parameters, the description carries the full semantic load and does so: it documents path/sheet/header_row, enumerates the legal mapping targets (x,y,z,rotation(graus),scale,scale_x/y/z,layer,block,handle,ignore,"attr:TAG") plus auto-detection fallbacks, and explains block_name, key_tag (the update-vs-duplicate rule), layer, update_position, create_missing_layer, dry_run and confirm. This is meaning the schema alone does not provide.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource+scope: inserts or updates blocks row-by-row from an .xlsx spreadsheet, and adds the distinguishing trait that a single Ctrl+Z undoes the whole batch. This separates it cleanly from siblings like export_blocks_to_excel, sync_attributes_from_excel, and insert_block without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit 'QUANDO USAR' section names the concrete use case (loading a support/TAG table into the drawing) and prescribes a safe flow: dry_run=true first, then execute. It also states the conditional gate — inserts need no confirmation, but any row that UPDATES an existing block requires confirm=true — which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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