r7_sheet_formula

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. 'Insert or update' hints at mutation, but it omits whether existing cell content is overwritten, permission/auth requirements, and how the formula is recalculated or persisted.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and no repetition of the name. It is efficient, though arguably underspecified rather than maximally concise.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. With 7 parameters and a nested numberFormat object, an agent still lacks behavioral context such as overwrite semantics, output behavior, and sheet selection precedence.

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%, including the example-laden cell/formula descriptions and the nested numberFormat object, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, warranting the baseline 3.

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 (insert/update) and resource (a formula in an XLSX cell), which is more precise than the sibling r7_sheet_write's value-writing role. However, it never names or contrasts with r7_sheet_write/r7_sheet_format, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the word 'formula'.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to reach for r7_sheet_formula versus r7_sheet_write when populating a cell.

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