apply_formula

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

The description only states the action without disclosing behavioral details. Without annotations, the agent is not informed about potential side effects (e.g., overwriting cell content), error behavior, or whether the formula is immediately evaluated. The output schema exists but the description does not mention what is returned.

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 extremely concise: a one-line verb phrase followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the purpose. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given 4 required parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basic function but lacks completeness. It does not explain the relationship between this tool and siblings (e.g., when to use apply_formula vs write_data_to_excel), nor does it mention error handling or the need for a valid session. The output schema is present but not leveraged in the description.

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 description includes parameter explanations (e.g., 'session_id: Session ID from open_workbook') that add meaning beyond the input schema's type and title. However, the formula parameter is described vaguely as 'Excel formula to apply', missing details like supported syntax or escape rules. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but could be more specific.

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 'Apply Excel formula to cell' is a specific verb+resource that clearly states what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'validate_formula_syntax' and 'write_data_to_excel' by focusing on formula application. No ambiguity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an active session from open_workbook) or context where other tools like 'write_data_to_excel' might be more appropriate. This lack of usage direction leaves the agent uninformed.

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