Excel Analytics MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Remove,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify if deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting saved analyses). This leaves critical behavioral traits unclear for a destructive operation.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy or fluff.

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 destructive nature, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on permissions, irreversibility, or error conditions. For a delete operation, this leaves gaps that could lead to misuse, though the output schema mitigates some uncertainty.

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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter ('tool_id'), the schema alone documents it as a required string. The description doesn't explain what a 'tool_id' is, how to obtain it, or its format. However, since there's only one parameter and the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, this minimal case scores adequately but not informatively.

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 action ('Remove') and target ('a user-created tool'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_tool' and 'edit_tool' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'user-created' means or differentiate from other deletion-like operations that might exist.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the tool_id from 'list_my_tools'), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete system tools), or related workflows (e.g., use 'create_tool' to make new ones). The agent must infer usage from the name and sibling tools alone.

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