origin_worksheet_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and adds meaningful behavioral context: format is deliberately not inferred, guessing can quietly corrupt columns, and dates must be Julian day numbers. It does not state overwrite/append behavior, but the key data-integrity warning is valuable.

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 compact and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place: the core write action, the column schema, the rationale for explicit formats, and the date encoding requirement. No filler or redundancy.

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?

It covers the complex column format semantics and date behavior sufficiently, but it omits target-worksheet semantics (book/sheet) and start_col placement, and does not clarify whether writing replaces or appends columns. For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, this is a minimum-viable description.

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 thoroughly explains the 'columns' element shape and valid format values, but says nothing about 'book', 'sheet', or 'start_col', leaving those parameters reliant on their names and defaults.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Write columns into a worksheet.' It also provides concrete column structure and format strings, making the tool's role unmistakable and clearly distinct from worksheet read/info siblings.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no sibling alternatives are named. The description implies writing use but does not distinguish it from origin_set_options or origin_worksheet_read for an agent deciding between tools.

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