excel_write_worksheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this overwrites existing data, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on failure (e.g., invalid worksheet name). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, error handling, and output, failing to provide enough context for safe and effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'data' should contain (e.g., 2D array of values), how 'worksheetName' is resolved, or the meaning of 'startRow' and 'startCol' defaults. This leaves all 4 parameters poorly documented.

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 'Write data to a worksheet' clearly states the action (write) and target (worksheet), but it's vague about what 'data' entails and doesn't distinguish from siblings like excel_add_worksheet or excel_read_worksheet. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity about the write operation's nature.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an open workbook), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like excel_add_worksheet for creation or excel_read_worksheet for reading, leaving usage context unclear.

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