create_workbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the 'real path' requirement and the overwrite behavior, but does not clarify what happens if the file exists and overwrite is False, nor whether parent directories are created. These are significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or vague text. The structure is easy to scan and understand.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers most essential aspects: purpose, parameters, and key constraints. Minor omissions like error behavior on existing files without overwrite prevent a perfect score. Overall, it is nearly complete for a create operation.

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 description thoroughly explains each parameter beyond the schema: path must be real, sheets defaults to 'Sheet1', and overwrite controls replacement. Since the schema has no descriptions, this is essential and well-executed. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters.

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 explicitly states 'Create a new .xlsx workbook', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_sheet, which likely operates on an existing workbook. The mention of '.xlsx' also specifies the file format.

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 for creating a new workbook but does not explicitly mention when to use it over create_sheet or other file-related tools. It does provide contextual clues ('New files aren't preloaded') but lacks direct alternatives or exclusions. Thus, usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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