Trim Text From Trailing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mutating action and that it returns True on success, but it does not disclose whether the original file is modified or overwritten, what permissions are needed, failure behavior, or reversibility. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that removes content.

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 with no wasted words. The core operation and scope are front-loaded ('Removes specified trailing characters only'), and the success signal is appended compactly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 4-parameter transformation with an output schema available, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the operation, scope, and success signal. It is missing explicit alternative routing and mutation side-effect disclosure, but those gaps are partially mitigated by the 'trailing only' phrasing and the presence of an output schema for return details.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It maps 'specified trailing characters' to trim_text, 'specified range' to _range, 'worksheet' to worksheet, and 'Excel file' to file_uuid at a high level. However, it does not explain _range format, the role of file_uuid, or defaults, so the schema property names and default values must carry the remaining burden.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Removes specified trailing characters only (from the end) of text values within a specified range of a worksheet in an Excel file.' The explicit 'trailing only (from the end)' clearly distinguishes this from trim_text_from_leading and trim_text without needing to inspect schemas.

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 phrase 'trailing characters only (from the end)' gives clear selection context: an agent can infer this is for end-of-string trimming, not leading or general trimming. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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