insert_image

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

The description discloses that the image is embedded in the workbook, so the source file is not needed afterwards. This adds useful behavioral info beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details about error handling, permissions, or file requirements, which would enhance transparency.

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 two sentences with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently adds supporting details.

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 that inserts an image, the description covers the core behavior (embedding, resizing, formats). It does not describe return values, but that is acceptable given no output schema. It could mention assumptions about the image path, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description adds meaning for 'cell' (top-left corner) and 'width_px'/'height_px' (resize with proportional scaling). It does not describe 'session_id' or 'image_path', but the context of inserting an image implies their roles.

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 the action ('Insert a picture'), the target location ('top-left corner at the given cell'), and specifies supported formats (png, jpg, gif, bmp) and resizing options. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'add_chart' or 'add_comment'.

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 context for using the tool (supported formats, resizing behavior, embedding) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. It is clear enough for basic usage.

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