Import workbook

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only a purpose-oriented note about editing remotely and does not address the file-replacement/overwrite behavior or server-side side effects that a mutation tool would benefit from disclosing.

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 that states the action and a representative use case with zero filler. It is efficient, though the trailing 'e.g.' clause is slightly vague.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, return values and argument meaning are covered, and the description supplies the core purpose. It remains thin on when this should be chosen over create_workbook.

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 100%, including the overwrite flag and path resolution rules, so the schema carries all parameter meaning. The description adds no format or path syntax detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 (save/import) and resource (an uploaded workbook file) on the server, which separates it from create_workbook and export_workbook. It does not explicitly name or contrast siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'e.g. to edit it remotely' implies the scenario for importing rather than creating a workbook, but no alternatives (create_workbook, export_workbook) or exclusions are named. Usage is only implied.

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