worksheet_view

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It notes the tool is 'usually non-destructive aside from toggling UI settings stored in the workbook,' which discloses the write side effect and the non-destructive nature. It also explains the behavior for each action, but lacks detail on reversibility or permissions.

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 an initial summary, an Args list, Returns, and Notes. It is front-loaded with purpose and every line provides 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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters and 3 distinct actions, the description covers all actions and parameters, and specifies the return type. It lacks examples or error handling details, but these are not essential for a simple toggle tool, making it complete enough for effective use.

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 itself has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description significantly compensates by explaining each parameter's role: action enum, file_path, sheet_name, cell_ref for freeze, cell_range for auto_filter, remove, and show. It adds practical meaning, though format details (e.g., cell range syntax) could be more explicit.

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 toggles view-related settings (freeze panes, auto-filter, gridlines), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling worksheet tools by focusing on view settings rather than structure, printing, or transfer.

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 lists the three actions and their parameters, implying when to use them (e.g., for freeze use cell_ref, for auto-filter use cell_range). However, it provides no explicit comparison to sibling tools or guidance on when not to use it, so usage context is only implied.

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