create_xlsx

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create' which implies a write operation, but does not mention overwrite behavior, file existence handling, permissions, or whether the operation is pure file creation. There is no mention of failure modes or side effects beyond creating a file.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and resource. However, it lacks depth that could be included without much added length, so it's efficient but minimally informative.

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 tool with only two parameters, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It does not explain how sheets, headers, and rows interact, or any constraints (e.g., header alignment to rows). The schema covers parameter details, but the description provides no strategic context an agent might need to decide how to structure inputs.

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 100% (both outputPath and sheets have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond repeating 'with sheets and data', which is already implied by the schema. It does not clarify row/header relationships or formatting nuances.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create an Excel spreadsheet (XLSX)'. This distinguishes it from siblings like edit_xlsx, create_docx, and create_pptx by naming the output type and action. It's unambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are siblings like edit_xlsx, create_docx, etc., but the description doesn't mention conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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