Excel Add Worksheet

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which is contradicted by the description's 'Add a new worksheet' – adding is a mutation, not a read-only operation. This is a serious inconsistency. The description also does not disclose behavior such as whether an existing worksheet with the same name will be overwritten or cause an error, or whether the operation requires write permissions.

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 that front-loads the core action and resource. It earns its place with no wasted words, though it could have added a brief usage note without becoming bloated.

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 annotation contradiction (readOnlyHint=true for a mutating operation), the description is incomplete and misleading. It also lacks guidance on naming constraints or behavior when the worksheet already exists. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the core behavioral context is flawed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden. The description does not clarify the relationship between site_id/drive_id and item_id_or_path, but that is not required given full schema coverage.

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 ('Add') and resource ('new worksheet/tab to an existing Excel workbook'), which clearly identifies the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like excel_create_workbook, but the resource distinction (worksheet vs workbook) is reasonably clear from the wording.

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 usage context: adding a worksheet to an existing workbook, which distinguishes it from creating a workbook. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like excel_create_workbook or excel_create_table, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as the workbook needing to exist or the worksheet name being unique.

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