set_orientation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a meaningful side effect: 'the plan is re-placed automatically.' However, it does not mention whether the change is reversible, whether existing content is preserved, or what the output schema contains. The disclosed behavior is helpful but incomplete.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and the allowed values, then adds the key behavioral note about automatic re-placement. Every word earns its place; there is no filler.

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?

The tool is simple (one required enum parameter) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, the 'page' parameter is undocumented in the description, and there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus related sheet tools. For a simple tool this is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'orientation' parameter by listing its two enum values, which adds meaning. However, the 'page' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from the schema alone. The description partially compensates but leaves a gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('the sheet'), and names the two allowed values ('landscape' or 'portrait'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like set_page_size or set_scale, which are also sheet-related.

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 implies the tool is used when the user wants to change sheet orientation, and the automatic re-placement of the plan is a useful contextual hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_page_size or set_scale, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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