edit_excel_workbook

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

While the annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, the description adds critical behavioral specifics: rewriting the file, overwriting in place when output_path is omitted, and the backup option. It also mentions the dry_run option for validation without writing, providing a comprehensive picture of side effects.

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 well-structured: it opens with the core action, lists the operations compactly, then provides essential behavioral warnings and sibling alternatives. It is concise yet comprehensive, with no unnecessary fluff, and the key information (overwrite, backup) is prominently placed.

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 a mutation tool with output schema present, so return values need no explanation. The description covers all necessary context: how to perform edits, optional output path, backup behavior, dry-run validation, and how to avoid overwriting. It is complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

All parameters have descriptions (schema coverage 100%), and the ExcelEditOp description in the schema explicitly lists which fields are meaningful for each action (e.g., 'write_cell': cell, value, sheet_name, style, is_formula). This gives clear parameter semantics beyond the terse per-field descriptions, ensuring the agent understands how to use each field.

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 edits an existing .xlsx workbook and lists the specific typed operations (write_cell, set_formula, etc.), distinguishing it from creation and analysis tools. The verb 'edit' and resource '.xlsx workbook' make the purpose explicit.

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 explicit usage guidance by naming sibling tools: 'To build a new workbook use create_excel_workbook; to inspect one first use analyze_excel_data.' This tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives, and the mention of overwriting and backup options further clarifies usage scenarios.

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