区域去重

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly discloses that the file IS modified ('会修改文件'), that rows are deleted by becoming blank rather than removed (space-preserving, preventing content shift), and that content outside the range is untouched. This is rich behavioral disclosure, though it doesn't mention effects on merged cells or formatting.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by precise edge-case behavior. Every clause earns its place and communicates critical side effects the agent must know.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: mutation behavior, blank-vs-delete semantics, and range scoping. The only notable gap is hasHeader handling, but overall the description is complete enough to select and invoke this tool correctly among 14 siblings.

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 40%. The description explains the semantics of keyColumns (rows identical across those columns are deduped) which adds meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't explain hasHeader's effect on deduplication logic, despite hasHeader being a present boolean parameter. Description only partially compensates for the uncovered 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 clearly states specific verb+resource: '删除区域内 keyColumns 完全相同的重复行' (delete duplicate rows in range with identical keyColumns), plus concrete behavior details like '只保留第一次出现的行' and '会修改文件'. It distinguishes from sibling sort/filter/merge tools by focusing on deduplication of rows within a specific range.

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 context (deduping within a delimited area of a spreadsheet) and explicitly notes the range scope ('区域外的内容不会被移动'). However, it does not state when NOT to use this versus alternatives, or when to prefer read_range/write_range or sort_range instead. No exclusions or explicit alternative guidance.

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