format-excel-range

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description confirms it 'updates' the format, implying modification. The description goes beyond annotations by detailing what properties are affected (range format) and what should not be set (font, fill, borders). It adds context about the scope and limitations, though it does not discuss auth or rate limits.

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 moderately concise but includes a redundant first sentence ('Update the navigation property format in drives') that adds little beyond the tip. The tip is well-structured and informative, but the overall length could be reduced without losing clarity.

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 complexity (7 parameters, 5 required, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: required address parameter, body properties to set, and the important note about sub-resources. It omits mentioning other required path parameters (driveId, driveItemId, workbookWorksheetId) and the response format, but these are inferable from the schema.

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 schema coverage at 86%, the description adds value by listing the key body parameters (horizontalAlignment, verticalAlignment, wrapText, columnWidth, rowHeight) and clarifying that font, fill, and borders should not be included. This prevents incorrect usage of the body parameter beyond what the schema reveals.

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 'Update the navigation property format in drives' and expands with a tip to apply rangeFormat properties to a specific range, distinguishing it from sibling tools like update-excel-range that update cell values. It specifies the resource and action, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool by listing the body parameters (horizontalAlignment, verticalAlignment, wrapText, columnWidth, rowHeight) and explicitly noting that font, fill, and borders are sub-resources to be handled via separate endpoints. This helps avoid misuse but does not directly compare to all sibling tools like update-excel-range.

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