origin_write_worksheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic operation, omitting key details like whether data is appended or overwritten, error handling, required permissions, or what happens when the worksheet doesn't exist (though a 'create' parameter exists, its behavior is not explained in the description). This is insufficient for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence with no extraneous words. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 presence of an output schema, return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., overwrite vs. append) and does not mention the tool's interaction with active sheets/workbooks, leaving the agent uncertain about side effects. It is minimally adequate but incomplete for safe autonomous use.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates 'structured rows' without clarifying the interplay between 'rows', 'columns', and 'start_col' or the implications of 'create'.

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 the action ('Write structured rows') and the resource ('into a new or existing Origin worksheet'), using a specific verb+resource pattern that distinguishes it from sibling tools like origin_read_worksheet or origin_diagnose_worksheet.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Sibling tools like origin_read_worksheet or origin_diagnose_worksheet appear in the list, but no differentiation is offered.

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