doc_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key side effect: changing calc mode alters workbook behavior for formula recalc. It also explains return types for both actions. However, it doesn't state whether the change is saved to the file, which is a minor transparency gap.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Notes sections, and is concise at under 150 words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool with 3 parameters and 2 actions, the description covers purpose, all parameters, return behavior, and a side effect. It lacks error handling or prerequisite info, but is sufficient for basic usage. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return structure, and the description already outlines it.

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 fully explain parameters. It does: action enum values, file_path meaning, and calc_mode options with examples. It also clarifies the behavior and return type per action, adding value beyond the schema.

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 'Read document properties or set calculation mode', using specific verbs 'read' and 'set' and identifying two distinct resources/actions. It distinguishes from siblings by including the unique 'set_calc_mode' operation, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 when to use each action (get for reading properties, set_calc_mode for changing calc mode) and notes the effect of changing calc mode, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like get_workbook_metadata or state when not to use this tool. Guidance is implied rather than directly given.

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