create_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states the primary action and does not mention what happens if the sheet name already exists, how index bounds are handled, whether changes are persisted, or error conditions. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear action statement followed by a straightforward parameter list. No word is wasted; every sentence contributes functional information.

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?

The description covers all three parameters and the core operation, making it minimally viable for a low-complexity tool. However, it omits common edge cases like duplicate sheet names, invalid index ranges, and file-save behavior, which would help the agent anticipate errors or side effects.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning and default behavior. For instance, it clarifies that 'index' is zero-based and omitting it appends to the end, and 'path' can reference a preloaded file.

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 action ('Add a new empty sheet') and the target resource ('existing workbook'). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_workbook and delete_sheet, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 phrase 'existing workbook' provides clear context that this tool is for adding sheets to already-created files, implying it is not for creating new workbooks. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or list exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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