create_workbook

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses overwrite behavior, backup rotation into .ks4xl-backups, restore via source='prev', and the fact that an existing file is untouched unless overwrite is true. It also explains important edge-case constraints like sheet name length and apostrophe restrictions.

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 compact yet information-dense, with no filler. Every sentence adds meaningful detail: creation action, sheet constraints, overwrite/backup semantics, and return value. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and supporting edge cases follow logically.

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 and zero annotations, the description is impressively complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, constraints, overwrite behavior, backup/restore implications, and the return value. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly without additional research.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters, and it does. It covers path, sheets (including default 'Sheet1' and uniqueness/length constraints), and overwrite (including its backup-rotation side effect). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new .xlsx workbook at path' with given sheet names. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like copy_workbook or get_workbook_metadata by focusing on creation and including unique creation constraints.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: creating a new workbook at a specified path, with prerequisites like the parent directory already existing. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the creation-specific scope makes the intended usage clear.

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