fill_formula

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the relative reference adjustment mechanism with an example, which is the key behavioral trait. It does not mention if the operation overwrites existing content or any safety considerations, which would have earned a 5.

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 sentences plus a compact example. No wasted words. The description is front-loaded with purpose, then behavior, then illustration. Every sentence earns its place.

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 of moderate complexity, the description covers the core mechanism and absolute references. It doesn't mention what happens with non-contiguous ranges, error handling, or that it overwrites existing data. Minor gap but still fairly complete given the context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning: it explains that 'range' is the target range, 'formula' is the formula to fill, and how the formula is adjusted (top-left written as-is, rest translated). The example clarifies the expected format for range and formula, compensating fully for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Fill a range with a formula, adjusting relative references like Excel's fill handle.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like set_formula or write_range, which operate on single cells or static values.

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 provides a concrete example and explains relative vs absolute references ($), giving clear context for usage. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like set_formula or copy-paste operations, but the purpose is distinct enough.

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