office_sheet_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that list and read return values and formulas, but it does not describe side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what happens to existing workbook content when actions like set, formula, link, or name are used.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by action enumeration and parameter explanations. The text is appropriately sized for an eight-parameter multi-action tool, though it reads as a run-on block rather than clearly structured sections.

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?

The tool is complex with eight parameters, multiple actions, no annotations, and no schema parameter descriptions. The description covers many parameter formats but lacks action-specific parameter requirements, safety or permission context, and sibling differentiation, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to infer.

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, and it does substantial work by explaining cell format (A1), formula syntax including cross-sheet links, link formats (URL or #'Other'!A1), defined names, and range_ref syntax. It still omits meaning for path and value, and it does not map required parameters to specific actions.

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 a specific verb (Edit) and resource (an xlsx or ods workbook) and enumerates the sheet-level objects involved. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as office_list_tool, office_read_tool, or office_replace_tool, which may overlap with its listed list and read actions.

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 action list implies operational usage, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools that perform similar list, read, or replace operations. The description provides context through action names but stops short of stating when-not-to-use or naming alternatives.

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