r7_sheet_write

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never discloses whether existing cell contents are overwritten, whether the target file/sheet must already exist, whether a new sheet is created, or what happens on partial failure — all critical for a mutation tool.

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, clearly leading with the verb and resource. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to the missing behavioral context rather than being a structural flaw.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the one-line description is too thin. It omits overwrite/reversibility semantics, the roles of cells vs matrix, and file-existence requirements that an agent needs to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, including the cells/matrix distinction and date/numberFormat handling. The description only echoes the index-or-name addressing mode already stated in the schema, adding no new parameter meaning.

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 (write) and resource (values, dates, formulas into an XLSX worksheet) with scoping detail (addressed by index or name). It does not, however, differentiate from nearby siblings such as r7_sheet_add, r7_sheet_formula, or r7_edit, which an agent must disambiguate.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. r7_sheet_formula for formula-focused work or r7_sheet_add for adding sheets), and no prerequisites. The agent must infer choice among several sheet-related siblings entirely on its own.

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