xlsx_data_validations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds detail about what validations are listed (target cells, formulae, error messages, prompt text) and that it surfaces them in one shot. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with purpose, uses 'USE WHEN'/'DO NOT USE WHEN' for clarity, and every sentence adds value. 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?

Covers the tool's action, use cases, and output fields, but lacks parameter descriptions. Given no output schema, the description partially compensates by mentioning returned data (target cells, formulae, etc.). Missing parameter details reduces completeness slightly.

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%, and the description does not explain the parameters (file_b64 and options.sheet). It does not mention that file_b64 is a base64-encoded Excel file or provide guidance on the optional sheet parameter. This leaves the agent to infer from context.

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 lists cell-level data validation rules (dropdowns, bounds, text-length caps, custom formulas). It distinguishes from siblings by noting that other tools cannot do this in one shot, providing specific examples of what it returns.

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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' sections provide concrete scenarios: auditing forms, extracting dropdowns, generating fixtures vs. reading values (use xlsx_read) or enforcement on write (xlsx_write does not write validations). Also mentions free tier cap.

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