sync_attributes_from_excel

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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and destructive, and the description adds important operational behavior: mass value changes require confirm=true, dry_run previews before/after plus missing and ambiguous matches, and Ctrl+Z undoes everything. It also clarifies blank-cell handling and that no blocks are inserted or moved.

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 front-loaded with the core action and safe workflow, then groups parameters and example efficiently. Despite its length, every section is relevant for a destructive 8-parameter tool with zero schema help.

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?

It covers the mutation scope, safe execution flow, parameter semantics, matching behavior, and edge cases such as blank cells and missing/ambiguous matches. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be explained in the description.

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 carries the full burden and does so well. It explains path, sheet, header_row, key_tag, block_name wildcard filtering, mapping behavior, dry_run, and confirm, including the default that each spreadsheet header becomes the attribute tag name.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it updates attributes of existing blocks, matching by a key TAG. It also explicitly excludes inserting and moving, which distinguishes it from sibling block/import tools.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: the spreadsheet is the source of truth for data such as TIPO, LINHA, PESO, and the drawing should reflect it. It also prescribes a safe dry_run-then-confirm flow, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for insertion or per-block updates.

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