spreadsheet_create_workbook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful safety trait—no overwriting of existing files—but it leaves ambiguous what actually happens on conflict (error, no-op, unique filename creation) and provides no further behavior context.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the action, the output format, and a critical constraint in minimal space.

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 and an output schema exists, so return values are likely covered elsewhere. However, given there are no annotations and the description is very brief, an agent still lacks clarity on conflict behavior and parameter usage, making this minimally adequate rather than 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%, and the description does not explain 'filename', 'sheet', or 'headers'. The parameter names and the general purpose allow some inference, but the description adds essentially no detail beyond what the schema itself exposes.

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 ('Cria'), a clear resource ('uma planilha XLSX'), and an important scoping behavior ('sem sobrescrever arquivos existentes'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like spreadsheet_read_range and spreadsheet_append_rows, which operate on existing files.

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 it should be used to create a new XLSX file and that existing files will not be overwritten, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or what to do if the file already exists. Usage context is mostly carried by the tool name and sibling names.

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