format-excel-range

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

The description clarifies which properties are set (horizontalAlignment, verticalAlignment, wrapText, columnWidth, rowHeight) and which are excluded (font, fill, borders), adding context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose whether unspecified formatting properties are preserved or overwritten, nor does it mention any confirm-gate requirements, despite the destructiveHint annotation. This leaves a partial but noticeable gap.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place: the purpose, the required parameter, the body fields, and the exclusion/alternatives. The emoji tip makes it visually scannable without adding bulk.

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?

While the description covers the main use case and exclusions, it fails to mention the other four required path parameters (driveId, driveItemId, workbookWorksheetId, body) and does not explain what happens to unspecified formatting properties. Since there is no output schema and annotations only provide generic safety hints, the description leaves the agent with some ambiguity in fully invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 88% description coverage and includes many body properties, but the description adds key semantics by narrowing the effective body to {horizontalAlignment, verticalAlignment, wrapText, columnWidth, rowHeight} and explicitly saying font/fill/borders are not set here. This prevents misuse of the schema's broader body shape. It also gives address examples, which is helpful.

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 'Format an Excel range,' a specific verb+resource statement. It goes on to say 'Apply rangeFormat properties to a specific range' and explicitly distinguishes this tool from format-excel-range-font, format-excel-range-fill, and format-excel-range-border by stating that font, fill, and borders are NOT set here.

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 gives direct usage guidance: it identifies the required path parameter 'address' with examples, lists the specific body fields to use, and explicitly names alternative tools for font, fill, and border formatting. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus its siblings.

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