append_rows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the default recalculate behavior, the ability to skip it via `recalculate=False`, and the rationale (avoiding round-tripping complex workbooks). It also documents the `create_sheet_if_missing` side effect. This goes beyond a simple 'appends rows' statement and warns of potential file modifications.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by a focused note on the recalculate flag, then a structured Args list. Every sentence earns its place: the first sentence states purpose, the second explains a key option, and the list documents parameters. No unnecessary verbosity.

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 that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the full parameter set, the primary behavior, and a conditional edge case (recalculate=False). The path handling note ('Omit if only one file is configured') addresses multi-file contexts, making the description complete for a tool with five parameters and no annotations.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all five parameters: path, sheet, rows, create_sheet_if_missing, and recalculate. It gives format guidance for rows ('each a list of cell values in column order') and default behavior for recalculate, adding significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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: 'Append rows after the last used row of a sheet, then recalculate the workbook.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like insert_rows (which insert at a specific position) and write_cells (which overwrite cells).

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 implies usage by defining the append position ('after the last used row') and provides a conditional alternative with `recalculate=False` for structurally complex workbooks. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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