format-excel-range-border

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so 'Sets' confirms mutation but adds no new behavioral details. The description does not disclose that the operation overwrites existing border settings, requires specific permissions, or has other side effects. With annotations covering the core behavioral trait, minimal additional transparency is provided.

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 very concise at two sentences (plus a redundant tip). It front-loads the core action and side options. However, the tip duplicates the first sentence, which wastes space without adding new information.

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's complexity (9 parameters, 6 required, nested body object), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the body parameters (color, style, weight) or that the border applies to a specific range. It also does not address how the tool interacts with other formatting tools (e.g., whether calling with different sides merges or overwrites). The absence of an output schema further limits completeness.

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 high (89%), but the description adds crucial enumerations for the sideIndex parameter ('EdgeTop, EdgeBottom, etc.'), which are absent from the schema description. This compensates for the schema gap and helps agents choose the correct value. Other parameters like color, style, weight are already well-described in the schema.

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 ('Sets one border side') and identifies the resource (one side of an Excel range border). It lists the possible sideIndex values, which distinguishes it from sibling formatting tools like format-excel-range-fill or format-excel-range-font.

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 basic usage guidance: 'To outline all four edges, call once per side.' However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives like format-excel-range (which might set all borders at once). No mention of prerequisites or context.

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