Excel MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a destructive, non-idempotent write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: false), which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds minimal context beyond annotations by implying creation of a new sheet, but doesn't detail behavioral aspects like error handling (e.g., if source doesn't exist) or the open-world nature (openWorldHint: true).

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 that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Copy'), making it easy to parse quickly, and every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, destructive operation) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on output (no schema provided), error conditions, or how it interacts with siblings. However, annotations cover key behavioral traits, so the description meets minimum viability without being fully comprehensive.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Sheet name to be copied' for dstSheetName). The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as explaining that dstSheetName must be unique or that paths are absolute. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents 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 the action ('Copy') and resource ('existing sheet to a new sheet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'excel_write_to_sheet' or 'excel_create_table' which might also involve sheet manipulation, leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the source sheet must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot copy to an existing sheet name), or compare to siblings like 'excel_describe_sheets' for checking sheet existence first.

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