edit-excel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses important behavioral traits: 'append-rows preserves existing styles,' 'append-sheet fails if name exists,' and 'preview shows what would change.' It also mentions style overrides and presets. This is substantial transparency for a mutation tool, though it lacks details on permission requirements or error handling.

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 extremely concise, under 100 words, and front-loads the core purpose. It uses a clear list format for actions, enclosing parenthetical details succinctly. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no 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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: actions, their effects, and a prerequisite hint. However, it does not explain the return value (e.g., success indicator or updated file info), nor does it mention error scenarios or validation of filePath format. It is sufficient for common use cases but could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by grouping actions and implicitly linking parameters (e.g., 'rows required for append-rows,' 'sheetData required for append-sheet and replace-sheet'). This context helps the agent understand parameter dependencies, which the schema alone does not fully convey.

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 'Edit an existing XLSX workbook' and lists four specific actions (append-rows, append-sheet, replace-sheet, preview). This goes beyond a simple verb+resource, providing a concrete scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling edit tools (like edit-pptx) or the create-excel tool, though the context of editing existing XLSX files is implied.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use read-doc first if you don't know the sheet structure,' which is clear contextual guidance. It also lists the available actions, hinting at when to use each. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios (e.g., when to use create-excel instead) or mention prerequisites like file existence.

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