write_multi_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden. It explicitly notes 'Destructive when targeting existing files' and mentions overwrite semantics. This is valuable behavioral disclosure beyond the basic action, though it could detail the exact replacement behavior or permissions needed.

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. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Slight redundancy exists where the Args section repeats schema information, but overall it's efficient.

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 a moderate-complexity tool with an output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, overwrite danger, parameter roles. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use it over sibling tools (e.g., write_cells) and what happens to existing sheets, but the core operational context is present.

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% for top-level params, so the description must compensate. It does explain file_path as 'Destination workbook path' and sheets as 'List of SheetDefinition', adding basic meaning. However, it doesn't clarify nuances like the choice between 'data' and 'values' or column_widths mapping, relying instead on the nested 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 a specific action: 'Create or overwrite a workbook with multiple sheets, headers and data in a single call.' This distinguishes it from siblings like write_cells (cell-level writes) and create_workbook (basic creation).

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 the primary use case: creating or overwriting a multi-sheet workbook in one call. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'in a single call' phrasing differentiates it from cell-by-cell operations. Slight gap in explicit exclusions.

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