excel_enforce_formula_rule

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 'enforce' and 'autoFix' (via the schema), implying mutation and automation, but does not detail what 'enforce' entails (e.g., error reporting, highlighting cells, blocking edits), permissions required, or side effects. For a tool with potential data modification and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 of enforcing rules in Excel, no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% coverage), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, return values, and integration with sibling tools, leaving critical gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively in a financial analytics context.

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 50% (only 'autoFix' has a description), and the description does not add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides. It implicitly relates to 'autoFix' by mentioning 'automatically convert,' but this is redundant with the schema's description. With moderate schema coverage, the description offers minimal additional value, meeting the baseline for adequate but not compensatory.

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 tool's purpose: 'Enforce the rule that ALL calculated values must use formulas - never hardcoded results.' It specifies the verb ('enforce') and the resource/rule (formula usage in calculated values), making the intent explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'excel_audit_calculations' or 'excel_validate_formulas', which might have overlapping functionality, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 does not mention prerequisites, such as needing an open workbook or specific data types, nor does it compare to sibling tools like 'excel_audit_calculations' or 'excel_validate_formulas' that might handle similar tasks. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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