apply_worksheet_refactor

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It states 'rewrite ... using replacement fields' but doesn't mention mutability, whether operation is reversible, or if it requires prior preview. For a mutation tool with no annotations, more detail is needed.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff. It front-loads the action and scope. Could add a second sentence for when to use or behavior, but current is acceptable.

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's complexity (refactoring a worksheet), and no annotations or output schema description, the description is incomplete. It omits what 'replacements' are, whether it validates, and how errors are handled. Output schema exists but description doesn't leverage it.

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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions), but description mentions 'replacement fields', hinting at the 'replacements' parameter. However, it doesn't clarify the format or meaning of the replacement fields, leaving ambiguity. With 0 parameters described in schema, baseline is 3 but could be higher.

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 action ('rewrite one worksheet'), resource ('worksheet'), and scope ('without touching others'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'preview_worksheet_refactor' or 'configure_worksheet_style', though not explicitly.

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?

Implies use when needing to refactor a single worksheet without affecting others, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, such as when to use 'apply_twb_migration' or 'preview_worksheet_refactor' first.

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