upsert_excel_table_rows

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is destructive. The description adds the behavioral semantics of matching rows and appending missing keys, but it does not disclose other important behaviors such as potential structure changes or the effect of dry_run.

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, focused sentence that conveys the core action without redundancy or filler. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a complex tool with 9 parameters, a destructive annotation, and no output schema. The one-sentence description is far too sparse to provide adequate context for an agent to invoke it correctly, omitting details about table selection, dry run, structure preservation, and expected return values.

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 9 parameters. It only vaguely references 'matching rows' and 'missing keys' without explaining key_column, dry_run, allow_structure_change, expected_structure_token, or any other parameter. This is a critical gap for correct invocation.

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 the tool's action with specific verbs 'Update' and 'append', targeting 'matching rows' in a 'native Excel table'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like append_excel_table_rows (append-only) and update_rows_by_key (update-only), making the upsert behavior 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 implies the intended use case—when you need to update existing rows and add new ones based on a key. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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