worksheet_print

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does offer one behavioral insight: 'Mostly metadata changes to the sheet's print settings,' which hints at low risk. However, it does not explain side effects like whether the file is saved in-place, whether existing settings are overwritten, or how page break removal works. The 'Returns: str' note helps, but more detail on mutability and file impact would be needed for full transparency.

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 a clear purpose sentence followed by Args, Returns, and Notes sections. It is reasonably concise, with the main redundancy being that the action enum is repeated in both the prose and the Args listing. No excessive detail or filler is present, and the first sentence front-loads the core functionality.

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's complexity (12 parameters, 5 actions, action-dependent arguments) and the absence of annotations, the description is not complete enough for correct invocation. It does not explain which parameters apply to which actions, expected value formats, or the effect on the file. The output is only a string, so that part is adequately covered, but the parameter and action semantics remain under-specified.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It lists parameter names and groups them (e.g., 'file_path, sheet_name: Workbook and worksheet'), but it treats the remaining ones as just 'params' without defining formats, allowed values, or action-specific usage. For instance, it does not explain that print_area likely expects an A1-style range string or that row/col specify a page break location. This is insufficient for 12 parameters.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Configure print areas, page setup, print titles and manual page breaks.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like worksheet_view or worksheet_structure, as it focuses on print-related metadata. The action enum further specifies the exact operations supported, making the tool's purpose 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 usage through the action list, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. It provides context that this is for print settings, but there is no guidance on scenarios like 'use this when modifying print layout' or 'not for data editing.' The usefulness is implied rather than directly stated.

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