excel_rename_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that cell contents are preserved, renaming to the same name is a no-op, and the file is saved even then. It also enumerates all possible errors (file not found, sheet not found, invalid params) with specific error codes, providing comprehensive behavioral insight.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary followed by clearly labeled argument descriptions and a returns/raises section. Every sentence adds value, including the edge-case notes and error enumerations. There is no fluff.

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 the tool's simplicity, the description is complete. It covers all parameters, return value, error conditions, and important behaviors (preserving cell contents, no-op case). With an output schema implied, the return format is explained sufficiently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so exceptionally: for each parameter (path, old_name, new_name, folder), it adds meaningful details such as constraints (new_name must be non-empty and free of forbidden characters) and defaults. This goes far beyond the schema's bare type/title information.

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 renames a sheet in a workbook. The verb 'Rename' and resource 'sheet in the workbook' are specific, and the tool is easily distinguished from siblings like excel_create_sheet, excel_delete_sheet, or excel_list_sheets.

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 usage is implied: use this tool when you want to rename an existing sheet. However, there is no explicit mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create, delete, or list sheets), nor are there any exclusions or conditions provided.

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