preview_worksheet_refactor

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must convey behavior. It clearly states 'without mutating the workbook' (read-only preview). However, it does not disclose return value structure, whether changes are simulated, or any side effects. The output schema exists but is not described; without it, the agent may not know what the preview returns.

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 concisely captures purpose and key constraint. No wasted words; front-loaded with action and scope.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return values. However, the tool has nested objects and 0% schema coverage, so the description should explain the replacements map. It partially compensates with 'worksheet-scoped field rewrites' but lacks detail on what constitutes a rewrite. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not describe the parameters 'worksheet_name' or 'replacements' beyond their names. The description mentions 'worksheet-scoped' hinting at worksheet_name, but does not explain that 'replacements' is a map from old field names to new names. The agent has no semantic guidance beyond the schema titles.

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 states 'Preview worksheet-scoped field rewrites without mutating the workbook,' which clearly specifies the action (preview), scope (worksheet-scoped field rewrites), and key trait (non-mutating). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'apply_worksheet_refactor' (which applies changes) and 'preview_twb_migration' (which is workbook-level). However, the term 'field rewrites' could be more explicit about what is being replaced.

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 use when wanting to see the effect of field replacements before committing, contrasting with 'apply_worksheet_refactor'. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The sibling list includes 'preview_twb_migration' and 'apply_worksheet_refactor', but the description does not directly compare.

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