新增工作表

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description implies mutation (appending a sheet) but doesn't state whether it overwrites an existing sheet with the same name, whether file locking is needed, whether there's an error if the file doesn't exist, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, the behavior around edge cases is undocumented.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. Every word earns its place by clarifying the operation (append), the resource (empty sheet), and the precondition (existing file). It's appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, because this is a mutation tool with no annotations, it would benefit from mentioning failure behaviors (e.g., duplicate sheet name error, nonexistent file error) or confirming the action is non-destructive to existing sheets. The simplicity of the tool keeps this at a 3 rather than lower, but there's room to add error-handling context.

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 coverage is 100%, so both filePath and sheetName are fully documented in the schema with descriptions including path format examples and character restrictions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema (it clarifies the tool appends an empty sheet), but since the schema already does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 '在已有文件中追加一张空工作表' clearly states the verb (append) and resource (an empty sheet in an existing file). It differentiates from siblings like list_sheets, delete_sheet, and rename_sheet, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from create_workbook (which creates a new file). The purpose is clear and specific enough.

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 ('在已有文件中' - in an existing file) which distinguishes it from create_workbook (which creates a new file). However, there's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to guidance naming alternatives. The sibling tools like read_range/write_range operate on ranges, so the distinction is somewhat implied but not explicitly spelled out.

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