write_data_to_excel

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

The destructiveHint annotation covers the overall destructive nature. The description adds the note about writing 'without any verification', but this is vague and ambiguous. It doesn't clarify what is not verified (e.g., formula validity, overwrites, data types). This adds some context but not enough to be fully transparent.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded, and the parameter list is clear. However, the second sentence ('Excel formula will write to cell without any verification') is cryptic, redundant, and confusing. It detracts from the overall conciseness and clarity, making the description less structured than it could be.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to mention return values, behavior when writing to an existing file, or the purpose of dry_run and include_changes. The ambiguous behavioral note doesn't compensate. Given the tool's complexity and the rich sibling context, more guidance is needed.

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 description explains filepath, sheet_name, data (list of lists with sublists as rows), and start_cell default. However, dry_run and include_changes are completely omitted, and the schema provides no descriptions. This partial coverage adds value but leaves two parameters undocumented, limiting the agent's ability to use the tool fully.

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 first sentence clearly states the action ('Write data to Excel worksheet') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from read tools, though not from other write tools like apply_formula. The second sentence about 'Excel formula will write to cell without any verification' is confusing and obscures the purpose.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or suitable scenarios. Sibling tools like apply_formula or append_table_rows are not referenced, so the agent receives no help in selecting among write operations.

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