Validate WorkPaper Formula

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds the critical limitation 'This checks syntax only,' clarifying that no evaluation or computation occurs, which is valuable beyond the structured fields.

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 two sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second clarifies the syntax-only scope and points to an alternative for evaluation. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter validator with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what it doesn't do. No critical missing information for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 single parameter is fully specified in the schema with type, required, and a detailed description including a leading '=' example. The description doesn't need to add parameter details; schema coverage is 100%, matching the baseline 3.

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 'Validate formula syntax with the WorkPaper parser before writing it to a cell,' specifying the verb (validate), resource (formula syntax with WorkPaper parser), and context (before writing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that read or write cell contents.

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 explicitly says to use this tool before writing a formula to a cell and names the alternative 'use set_cell_contents plus readback to evaluate' for evaluation cases. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, outscoring typical sibling differentiation.

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