workiva_write_verified

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-back verification, the limitation that formulas may return calculated results rather than raw text, and the deprecated retry_misses flag with retries intentionally disabled. It stops short of covering permissions or rate limits, but the key behavioral quirks are honestly stated.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence summary, a short caveat paragraph, and a clean Args list. Every sentence contributes functional information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the main action, the verification process, the formula edge case, and all parameter semantics. With an output schema available, return details need not be spelled out. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit comparison to workiva_write_cells, but the tool's purpose and usage are otherwise well conveyed.

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 Args section adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: spreadsheet_id and sheet_id are identified as UUIDs, cells are described as [{row, col, value}] with 0-based indices, and retry_misses is explained as a deprecated compatibility flag. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this fully compensates and goes beyond a minimum baseline.

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 tool's specific function: 'Write values/formulas, read back each row range, and report mismatches.' This distinguishes it from siblings like workiva_write_cells by emphasizing the verification and read-back behavior.

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?

It explains the context for formula cells and when unverified reporting is needed, advising callers when rawValue inspection is still required. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with workiva_write_cells or provide a clear 'use this when...' statement, though the 'verified' wording conveys the intended use case.

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