update-excel-range

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and description implies mutation ('update', 'write back'). However, it does not explicitly warn about overwriting existing data or explain the exact destructive behavior beyond the prepend-style merge example. The description adds some context but lacks a clear warning about irreversible changes.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and structure, but it is duplicated (appears twice with a TIP prefix), wasting space. It could be more concise without the repetition while retaining all substantive 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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description covers main use cases and body format but lacks details on formulas/number format setting, error conditions, prerequisites, and return value. It does not differentiate from clear-excel-range or delete-excel-range. Some gaps remain.

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 description adds significant value for the critical 'body' parameter by showing the exact structure with values array examples, compensating for the minimal schema description. It also clarifies the 'address' parameter usage. Other path parameters have basic schema descriptions, so the description does not add much for them, but the key payload is well explained.

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 sets cell values, formulas, or number format on any range, including the important note that it does not require a formal Excel table. It provides specific examples for append, update, and prepend scenarios, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools that operate on table rows or other range operations.

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 explicitly outlines when to use the tool for append, update, or prepend edits, with concrete address examples. However, it does not mention when not to use it (e.g., for operations better suited to other siblings like update-excel-table-row) or provide alternative tool names.

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