excel_write_cell

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool writes a value, but omits critical details such as whether the write is cumulative or destructive, if it requires the file to be open or saved, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence, which is concise but overly brief. It does not include necessary details, making it less helpful despite its brevity. It is not wasteful, but it under-informs.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description should have covered basic context like return values (e.g., confirmation of write), error conditions, or cell address format. With an empty input schema and no output schema, the description leaves too many gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 zero properties, yet the description mentions writing a value to a specific cell. It fails to explain how to specify the cell or value, leaving the agent without necessary parameter semantics even though the schema is empty. Schema coverage is technically 100% but meaningless.

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 verb 'Writes' and the resource 'value to a specific cell in an Excel file'. It effectively communicates the tool's basic function, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'excel_create' or 'excel_read', which are distinct operations.

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, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist) or exclusions. The absence of context leaves the agent to infer usage, which is insufficient.

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