numbers_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses that `=`-prefixed cells become real computed formulas, that the result is laid out (not just filled), that localized number formats are parsed into numeric values, and that an empty save_in only opens the document. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 compact yet information-dense, front-loading the core purpose and using a clear Args section for parameter details. Every sentence contributes value, and the structure makes it easily scannable.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, behavioral nuances, and usage alternatives, leaving no major gap for an agent to resolve before invoking the tool.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: rows must be equal-length arrays, save_in is a `.numbers` path and empty means no save, and table_name defaults to the file name. This provides essential meaning 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 the verb and resource: 'Create a Numbers sheet from a grid of values.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing creation, and it explicitly mentions an alternative (writing a CSV), making the tool's 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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'That is the reason to use this instead of writing a CSV.' It also describes the specific benefits (real formulas, proper layout, localized number parsing) that justify choosing this tool over simpler alternatives.

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