set_workbook_properties

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so excellently. It reveals partial-update semantics, a read-only fallback, the cache-staleness risk of manual calc mode, auto-backup and atomic verified save, and a lock-out condition when the file is open in Excel. This goes well beyond a generic 'sets properties' statement.

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 compact sentences deliver purpose, parameter details, and caveats without redundancy. The load-bearing facts are front-loaded, and every phrase either adds semantic detail or a behavioral warning. No filler or recapitulation of the schema.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this description covers an impressive amount: operations, effects, failure conditions, and mode-specific warnings. The presence of an output schema excuses not explaining return values. The main gaps are the two unexplained parameters (allow_loss, verify_com) and a lack of any explicit pointer to a sibling read tool for metadata-only queries.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains most parameters: the six document properties, calc_mode with its enum values, full_calc_on_load, iterative_calc with max_iterations and max_change, and null-means-leave-unchanged semantics. However, allow_loss and verify_com are not mentioned at all, and the backup parameter is only implied via 'Auto-backup', leaving some agent-facing ambiguity.

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 core document properties... and calc settings', then enumerates the exact fields involved. It also clarifies a dual read/write mode ('with none it reports current values read-only'), which removes ambiguity about what the tool does and how it differs from a purely mutable setter.

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?

It provides clear behavioral conditions: 'Only given parameters change; with none it reports current values read-only' and 'Refuses while open in Excel.' It also warns about the real-world consequence of manual calc mode. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or say 'use X instead for metadata reads', so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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