set_dimensions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses the best-effort approximation of autofit, the allow_loss safety gate for hazardous workbooks, auto-backup to .ks4xl-backups, atomic verified save, and refusal while the file is open in Excel. These are meaningful behaviors beyond the basic action.

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 contain the core action, parameter semantics, caveats, safety behavior, backup side effect, and failure condition—all without filler. The most distinctive operation is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

Despite 10 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the operation's mechanics, safety gates, side effects, and environmental constraints. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are not necessary, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, and the description compensates well for the most complex parameters: column_widths (Excel character units), row_heights (points), and autofit_columns (best-effort approximation). It also covers hiding rows/columns and allow_loss in context, though verify_com and backup receive lighter treatment.

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: 'Set column widths and row heights, hide rows or columns, and service an autofit request.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_cell, set_view, or format_cells, which target different aspects of the workbook.

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 makes usage context clear by enumerating the operations and key constraints: 'true autofit needs Excel via the com pack', 'hazardous workbook refuses unless allow_loss is true', and 'Refuses while open in Excel.' It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the conditions of use and important exclusions are stated.

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