clear_filter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and does an excellent job. It discloses error behavior (NOT_FOUND), side effects (unhides rows), return value (number of unhidden rows), safety behavior (hazardous workbook refusal, allow_loss), backup behavior, atomic save, and the Excel lock refusal.

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?

Every sentence carries essential operational information. The core action is front-loaded, and the supporting details about selection, refusals, return values, backup, and Excel lock are compact and non-redundant.

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 tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, this description is notably complete. It covers the operation, parameter semantics, failure modes, safety requirements, return behavior, and environmental constraints. The output schema exists, so the return type is already structurally defined.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the location/sheet selection semantics, the default use of the active autofilter range, and the meaning of allow_loss. It does not explain verify_com or path in detail, but it adds substantial meaning beyond the schema for several 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 states the specific action: removing the autofilter from a sheet and unhiding rows, which clearly identifies the resource and behavior. It also names itself as the reverse of set_filter, distinguishing it from the most relevant sibling tool.

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 explicitly positions the tool as the reverse of set_filter, tells how sheet selection works, warns that a sheet without an autofilter refuses rather than no-oping, and specifies when allow_loss is needed. This gives agents clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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