create_workbook

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the optional worksheet name, such as what happens if the target filepath already exists (overwrite vs. error). It does not contradict annotations, but also provides no additional behavioral context.

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 that front-loads the action and includes only relevant detail. No filler words or redundant information.

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?

For a destructive create operation, the description omits critical context about file existence behavior: whether the tool overwrites an existing file or fails. It also does not mention return values, but given no output schema and a straightforward action, the main gap is the destructive condition. This is moderately complete but not fully safe for an agent to invoke blindly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. It explicitly describes sheet_name as the optional initial worksheet name, adding meaning, but filepath is left undocumented, relying entirely on the parameter name. This is partial compensation.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Excel workbook'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_worksheet by targeting the file itself rather than a sheet inside an existing file. It also adds the key optional parameter detail (initial worksheet name), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies the tool's use case: creating a new workbook file. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_worksheet, nor does it mention preconditions or exclusions. This makes the usage guidance implied rather than explicit.

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