remove_custom_characters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses 'Supports case-sensitive or case-insensitive removal' and 'Returns True if the operation succeeds', giving some behavioral insight. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication, file mutation semantics, or failure behavior, so coverage is incomplete.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by a behavioral detail. No filler.

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?

For a utility tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core operation and return value, but lacks details on parameter formats, range defaults, and edge cases. It is functional but not fully 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%, so the description must compensate. It maps custom_characters, _range, worksheet, and case_sensitive to their roles, but does not clarify the format for custom_characters or defaults for _range/worksheet. file_token is not mentioned, though it's a common concept. Overall, adds some meaning but has gaps.

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 verb 'removes', the target 'user-specified custom characters from text values', and the scope 'within a specified range of a worksheet in an Excel file'. It differentiates from siblings like remove_numeric_characters by emphasizing 'user-specified', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 indicates it's for removing custom characters, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that remove predefined character classes. It also mentions case-sensitivity options, giving usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions.

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