create_year_sheet

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a safety behavior ('Refuses to overwrite') and the content it generates (tables, quarter sums, formulas, dropdowns), but silently omits that dry_run defaults to true, which determines whether anything is actually written, and gives no indication of required auth/config or where the file lands.

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?

Front-loaded with the outcome, then the contents, then the default and the guardrail. Dense but every clause conveys something; the domain jargon (box 61/96, Declaração Periódica) slightly raises reading cost.

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?

It is a mutation-style creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should cover the default-dry-run trap and what is returned (file path or sheet URL). It covers generated content well but leaves those two agent-critical gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain opening_credit meaningfully (Q1 box 61, defaults to previous year's Q4 box 96), but 'year' is left implicit and dry_run — the single most consequential parameter given its true default — is never mentioned.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Create a tax year's books') plus the output artifacts (.xlsx workbook or Google Sheet tabs). It distinguishes itself from the read/analysis siblings (vat_return, index_year, income_totals) by being the constructor, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage context is implied ('per the config', 'refuses to overwrite', default opening credit from prior year Q4 box 96), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no pointers to siblings like index_year or add_expense once the sheet exists.

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