remove_non_printing_characters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact character set (ASCII 0-31 except tab, newline, CR), the scope (specified range), and returns True if successful. This provides meaningful behavioral detail beyond the schema, though it omits potential side effects or error conditions.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that front-load the core action, include essential character details, and state the return value. No unnecessary information or repetition.

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?

While the output schema exists and the behavior is described, the missing parameter semantics and the ambiguous optionality of _range and worksheet (default null but description says 'specified range') make the tool incomplete for reliable invocation. The agent lacks guidance on how to properly specify the range and worksheet.

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 any parameters. It vaguely references 'specified range' and 'worksheet' without mapping them to _range or worksheet, and does not mention file_token or their formats/types. The agent cannot infer how to populate the parameters.

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's function: it removes non-printing control characters (with explicit ASCII range and exceptions) and other invisible characters from text in a specified worksheet range. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_text_characters or trim_text.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with similar text-cleaning tools. The usage context is only implied by the character-removal behavior.

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