update-excel-range

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true) and note the confirm gate. The description adds valuable context: the body shape, the 'no formal table required' caveat, and the requirement that inner-array values match column count. It doesn't discuss overwrite behavior or permissions, but given annotation coverage, the added context is solid.

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 concise but packed with practical details. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then a helpful tip, body format examples, use cases, and a constraint. Each sentence earns its place, though the body-format inline code could be slightly more compact.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage patterns, and critical body syntax. It does not describe the return value or error cases beyond the confirm gate, but the core functionality is well-documented and the description differentiates it from siblings.

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 88% but the 'body' parameter is a generic object with additionalProperties true, providing no structure. The description compensates with explicit body format examples: { values: [['v1','v2','v3']] } for single row and [['a','b'],['c','d']] for multi-row, plus the column-count rule. This is essential information that the schema lacks.

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 an Excel range' and elaborates that it sets values, formulas, or number format, distinguishing it from insert/delete/clear operations. It explicitly notes it works on any range, not just formal Excel tables, which differentiates it from table-specific tools like update-excel-table-row.

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 concrete use cases: append (target next empty row), update (single cell), and prepend-style edits. It explains the body format and column-count constraint. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use alternative tools like insert-excel-range or format-excel-range, though the usage examples imply the intended scenarios.

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