hyperlink

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that deleting hyperlinks modifies the workbook, but does not mention that adding also modifies the workbook, nor does it address permissions or error behavior. This is basic side-effect information but not comprehensive.

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 summary, args, returns, and notes. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has 7 parameters, 4 actions, and an output schema, the description covers the core operations and parameters, and notes a key side effect. It is fairly complete, though it could detail action-specific behaviors (e.g., what list returns) or error conditions. The output schema may cover return values, so the description is adequate.

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. It does so by explaining each parameter, including the action enum, cell_ref requirement for single-cell ops, and url for add. It adds meaningful usage context beyond the schema, though some details (e.g., display_text/tooltip applicability) could be clearer.

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's purpose with specific verbs (add, read, delete, list) and resource (hyperlinks attached to cells). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools easily as no other tool handles hyperlinks.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (managing hyperlinks) and explains the action parameter with appropriate usage notes (e.g., cell_ref for single-cell ops, url for add). No explicit alternatives or exclusions are named, but the context is sufficient.

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