set_column_widths

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

The only behavioral signal is the annotation destructiveHint=true; the description adds no extra context about overwriting existing widths, return values, or effects of dry_run. It does not contradict annotations but fails to enrich them.

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 9-word sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. Every word adds value.

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 5-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on the key-value mapping for widths, the effect of dry_run, and how changes are reported, making it inadequate for reliable invocation in a complex spreadsheet toolset.

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 does not compensate. It does not explain the structure of the 'widths' object, the meaning of dry_run, or the include_changes parameter, leaving all parameter semantics to the bare property names.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'set' and resource 'column widths', with 'explicit' distinguishing it from autofit_columns and other width-related tools. It is specific 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like autofit_columns or set_row_heights. The description only states what it does, leaving usage context entirely to inference.

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