write_cells

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and delivers: writes are atomic, a .bak backup is created, revert_last_write can roll back, formulas are recognized by '=' prefix, and there is a 100k-cell limit. This goes well beyond the bare schema.

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 front-loaded with the batch mandate, then uses compact labeled sections for parameters, safety, and limits. Every sentence adds operational value; no filler.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, all non-obvious parameters, safety/rollback behavior, and hard limits. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing; return-value detail is not essential for a 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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It thoroughly explains cells (list of {cell, value} objects and formula behavior), sheet (defaults to active sheet), and create_sheet_if_missing (default False). Only file_path is not discussed, though its name/title makes it self-explanatory.

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 ('批量写入多个单元格') and immediately frames it as a batch interface. It distinguishes itself from a single-cell write loop, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does and how it differs from the naive alternative.

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?

It explicitly instructs '请在一次调用里传入所有要写的单元格' and warns '不要用单格写入循环调用', giving a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use. It also explains the rationale (single file read/write cycle vs slow repeated backups) and notes create_sheet_if_missing defaults to False to avoid accidental sheet creation.

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