r7_sheet_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does add real behavioral context by promising 'Other sheets are left untouched', which reassures against collateral damage. It does not disclose whether the file is mutated in place, how outputPath affects the original, permissions needed, or whether an existing sheet with the same name is overwritten.

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?

A single tight sentence front-loads the action and resource, and the trailing clause about other sheets is the one piece of non-obvious scope information worth keeping. Zero waste.

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 five-parameter, fully schema-documented tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and side-effect scope adequately. It is slightly thin on how outputPath interacts with the original file, which is the one thing an agent might need but cannot get from the schema alone.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters (data, name, index, filePath, outputPath) with meaningful text. The description's phrase 'optionally with initial data' only loosely echoes the `data` parameter and adds no new semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Add a new worksheet to an existing XLSX workbook'), so the agent knows exactly what it creates. It also scopes the effect ('Other sheets are left untouched'). It does not name the sibling it differs from (e.g., r7_sheet_write or r7_create), so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Implied usage is clear from 'to an existing XLSX workbook', which establishes the prerequisite that the file must already exist. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing against alternatives like r7_sheet_write (write into an existing sheet) or r7_create (make a new workbook), leaving the agent to infer.

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