r7_convert

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the multi-sheet default and the sheetName-over-allSheets precedence, but says nothing about overwrite behavior at targetPath, required permissions, or error/failure reporting for a tool that writes files.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core capability and output formats, then the non-obvious XLSX caveat. No wasted phrasing.

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 conversion tool with no output schema, the description covers the format space and the main edge case (multi-sheet XLSX). It lacks any note on return value or overwrite semantics, but is otherwise adequate to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so both paths and both sheet options are already documented; baseline is 3. The description reinforces the sheetName/allSheets precedence but adds no new syntax or constraint beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (convert) plus resource (document) and enumerates the supported output formats, and names the underlying engine (x2t). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling write/read tools like r7_read, r7_create, or r7_edit.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance for the XLSX-to-PDF case: default exports every worksheet in tab order, and passing sheetName or allSheets: false restricts to one sheet. It does not name an alternative tool for in-place editing vs conversion, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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