excel_create_named_range

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 states 'Create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information on permissions required, whether it overwrites existing named ranges, error handling, or what the output looks like (since no output schema exists). The description is minimal and lacks critical context for safe and effective use.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (a write operation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It states what the tool does but omits essential context: parameter details, behavioral expectations, error conditions, and output format. For a mutation tool with undocumented parameters, this minimal description is inadequate for reliable agent use.

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 input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'name', 'range', or 'worksheetName' represent, their formats (e.g., Excel range syntax like 'A1:B10'), or examples. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters entirely undocumented.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('a named range in the workbook'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'excel_add_worksheet' or 'excel_create_workbook' by focusing on named ranges, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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 (e.g., needing an open workbook), compare to similar tools (like 'excel_create_formula_reference' for references), or specify scenarios where named ranges are beneficial (e.g., for simplifying formulas or dynamic ranges). Usage is implied only by the tool's name and purpose.

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