set_size

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the critical destructive trait that shrinking discards excess cases/variables, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about the attach/live-edit behavior, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to existing data when only one dimension is resized.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste; the core action is front-loaded and the second sentence adds only necessary destructive semantics.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the destructive consequence but omits the attach/live-edit implication and the persistence behavior of save. Enough to avoid surprise data loss, but not complete for a 6-parameter write operation.

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 coverage is 50%: path, save, and attach are documented in the schema while cases, sheet, and variables are not. The description ties cases/variables to the grow/shrink semantics, adding some meaning, but says nothing about sheet selection or how save/attach interact with the resize.

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 (resize) and resource (spreadsheet) and clarifies the two directions of the operation, growing vs shrinking. It doesn't name siblings like add_variables or delete_variables, so an agent must infer the distinction from the field names alone.

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 on when to use this instead of add_variables, delete_variables, or add_variables/delete_variables pairs. The growing/shrinking semantics are implied but no condition, prerequisite, or alternative tool is mentioned.

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