add_text_at_tail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation returns True on success and targets 'text cell's, but does not explain side effects like whether existing content is overwritten or appended, error behavior on failure, or any permission/authentication requirements. This adds moderate value but leaves gaps.

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 that communicates the primary purpose and return value without any filler. Every phrase contributes necessary information.

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?

Given the tool's relative simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core operation and success return. However, it lacks details about non-text cells, error handling, and prerequisites like file_token, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 'text' and 'range' conceptually, but does not define parameter names, explain file_token, or clarify optional parameters like _range and worksheet. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the raw schema.

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 action: 'Adds specified text to the end(tail) of each text cell within a specified range of a worksheet in an Excel file.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'end(tail)' phrasing distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_text_at_head.

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 usage by describing the action and scope ('within a specified range of a worksheet'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide 'when-not-to-use' guidance, but the straightforward nature of the tool makes the use case evident.

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