create_workbook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and succeeds. It explains cell type inference (formula, boolean, numeric, text), allows variable-length rows, discloses unsupported features, and states the side effect of saving to disk. This gives an agent a clear model of what will happen when the tool is invoked.

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-structured paragraph with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by essential cell-format rules and a clear list of limitations. Every sentence contributes to correct invocation or expectation-setting.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete for invocation purposes. It explains what the sheets parameter should contain, how cells are interpreted, the file path expectation, and what is not supported. No critical information for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining how cell strings are interpreted (leading '=' for formulas, 'true'/'false' for booleans, bare numbers as numeric) and that rows need not be uniform in length. This helps the agent construct correct parameter values.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: creating a new Excel workbook (.xlsx) and saving it to disk. It also clearly scopes the creation mode to 'a simple grid of sheets/rows/cells', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_workbook_from_json and create_workbook_from_xml.

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 clearly communicates when to use the tool: when you have a simple grid of sheet/row/cell data. It also explicitly lists unsupported features and directs users to the underlying library for those needs. However, it does not name the sibling JSON/XML-based workbook tools as alternatives, so the routing is not fully explicit.

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