recalculate_workbook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It transparently describes the process (saves session, opens Excel invisibly, recalculates, saves) and notes that the in-memory session retains formulas as text while only the file on disk gets cached results. It also discloses the requirement for desktop Excel.

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 three sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, process details, and a requirement. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and is a side-effect operation, the description explains input (session_id), process, and prerequisites. It could add notes about performance or that the file is modified, but it is largely 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the single parameter session_id is implicitly clear from the context ('Saves the session to disk'). However, the description could explicitly document session_id as the workbook session identifier.

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 tool's function: it recalculates formulas using a hidden Excel instance and caches results for read_calculated_range. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining the caching purpose.

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: it requires Microsoft Excel on Windows and a specific uv extra. It implies usage when computed values are needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond read_calculated_range.

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