add_dimension_group

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not describe what happens with invalid indices, overlapping groups, or authorization requirements. The description only states the basic operation without behavioral context.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action. It is concise but could be restructured to include more key details without significant length increase.

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?

With 5 required parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain that grouping refers to creating expand/collapse outlines, does not clarify the half-open interval range, and does not specify valid values for dimension (e.g., 'ROWS' or 'COLUMNS').

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%, yet the description adds little meaning. It hints at start_index and end_index semantics ('zero-based, half-open range') but does not explain other parameters like dimension or sheet. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the tool groups rows or columns over a zero-based, half-open range, which distinguishes it from siblings like update_dimension_group and delete_dimension_group. However, it could be more explicit about creating collapsible groups.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as whether the range must not already be grouped, or scenarios where update_dimension_group should be used instead.

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