analyze_range_impact

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Inspect' aligns with a read-only operation. The description adds the pre-mutation context but does not elaborate on what 'workbook structures' encompasses or how results are returned, which is a minor gap given the annotation's coverage.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. No redundancy or filler, earning its place in the description.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations beyond read-only, the description is too vague about what structures are inspected and what the return value indicates. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's full capabilities, especially given the need to assess range impact before mutation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no additional parameter information. The parameter names (filepath, sheet_name, range_ref) are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to add any semantics, formats, or relationships beyond the bare schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and clearly identifies the resource as 'workbook structures that overlap a worksheet range', with the added purpose of pre-mutation analysis. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_named_range or list_tables, which target specific structure types.

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 'before mutation' explicitly signals the intended use case, making it clear when this tool should be invoked. While it doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use it, the context is direct and actionable.

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