update-excel-range

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that the tool sets values/formulas/format and that the body must match column counts. It does not elaborate on potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing data) or error conditions. The description does not contradict annotations, but it could be more explicit about the destructive nature and what happens on failure.

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 core description is reasonably concise but includes a redundant 'tip' that repeats the same information. The description is front-loaded with the main action, but the repetition adds unnecessary length. Every sentence is earned, but the duplication wastes space.

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 (8 parameters, nested body object, no output schema), the description covers the main usage patterns and provides concrete examples for the body. It does not explain return values or error scenarios, but the confirm parameter's behavior is described in the schema. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 88%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description adds significant value for the 'body' parameter, specifying that it must contain a 'values' key with a 2D array and giving examples for single and multi-row. It also clarifies the constraint that inner array length must match column count, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 verb 'set' and the resource 'cell values, formulas, or number format on any range'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing that it does not require a formal Excel table, and it explicitly mentions use cases (append, update, prepend) that differentiate it from other range manipulation tools like get-excel-range or clear-excel-range.

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 clear guidance on when to use the tool (for writing values, formulas, or number formats) and includes specific patterns (append, update, prepend). It notes that the range does not need to be a table, distinguishing it from table-specific tools. However, it does not explicitly state when alternatives like add-excel-table-rows or update-excel-table-row should be preferred, leaving some inference to the user.

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