create_excel_workbook

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

The description warns that the tool 'overwrites any file already there,' which is important behavioral context. However, the annotation destructiveHint=false contradicts this warning, since overwriting an existing file is a destructive side effect. Per the rubric, a description that contradicts annotations scores 1.

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 composed of three purposeful sentences, with the core creation intent first, the overwrite warning second, and usage routing third. The enumeration of sheet properties is somewhat redundant with the schema but still contributes to quick understanding.

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 description covers core behaviors including creation, overwriting, and sibling routing. It acknowledges the diversity of sheet configuration through the property list and explains the difference between creating versus editing. The main gap is the contradiction with the destructive annotation, which could mislead agents.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description repeats the sheet property names but does not add deeper meaning or usage context beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a NEW Excel workbook' from typed sheet specs, and lists the specific capabilities (headers, rows, formulas, freeze panes, etc.). It also implicitly differentiates from siblings by focusing on creation versus modification or analysis.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use edit_excel_workbook for targeted changes to an existing workbook and analyze_excel_data for read-only inspection. This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool versus the alternatives.

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