origin_write_worksheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'write structured rows' without explaining whether it overwrites, appends, or inserts data, or if it can create a new worksheet (though the 'create' parameter hints at this). No details on permissions, side effects, or limitations are given.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, it sacrifices necessary detail; additional context could improve usability without sacrificing brevity. It is adequate but could be more helpful.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the data format for rows, the effect of parameters like start_col or create, or the return value (though output schema exists). The description is incomplete for the agent to use the tool confidently.

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%, meaning the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters. The schema itself provides only types, defaults, and required status, but no textual descriptions. The description adds no value beyond what the schema already shows, leaving the agent without any parameter interpretation aid.

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 target ('new or existing Origin worksheet'), which gives a clear purpose. However, it does not distinguish from similar tools like 'origin_append_table' or 'origin_set_cell_value', which also modify worksheet data. The term 'structured rows' is a bit vague but overall functional.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't explain when to use 'origin_write_worksheet' instead of 'origin_append_table' or 'origin_set_cell_value'. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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