autofit_columns

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows the operation is destructive, but the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not disclose what exactly gets modified (e.g., whether it overwrites existing column widths, affects only specified columns, or is reversible). Without readOnlyHint or further details, the behavioral profile is incomplete.

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 a single sentence, direct and free of fluff. It conveys the core purpose without repetition or unnecessary details. Perfectly concise.

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 has 7 parameters, no output schema, and only a destructive hint annotation, a one-sentence description is insufficient. The description does not explain how auto-fit behaves (e.g., whether it applies to all columns or just specified ones, the effect of padding/min/max widths, or the dry_run feature). The agent lacks enough context to confidently invoke the tool correctly.

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%, and the description provides no information about any of the 7 parameters. The schema only lists titles and defaults (e.g., columns, dry_run, padding, max_width, min_width), which are ambiguous. The description does not clarify the meaning, usage, or interaction of these parameters, leaving the agent to guess.

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 a specific action (auto-fit) on a specific resource (worksheet columns) based on content width. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_column_widths, which manually sets widths. The verb+object pair is clear and unambiguous.

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 vs alternatives such as set_column_widths or format_range. It does not mention when auto-fit is preferred or any exclusions. There is no scenario context or comparison to siblings.

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