xlsx_healer_intent

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. Description adds behavioral context: it returns planned operations, cured bytes, and an unactionable list, and explains the three intents. No contradictions. Some details about authentication or rate limits missing, but adequate given 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 relatively concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement, intent breakdown, and usage guidelines. It could be slightly more compact by trimming redundant phrases, but overall efficient.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and nested objects, the description covers the main intent parameters and usage. However, it leaves some ambiguity about the return format ('unactionable list' is not explained) and how planning works. With no output schema, more detail would be helpful.

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%, but description compensates by explaining the three intents and their meanings (e.g., 'make-it-work: minimum surgery to clear errors'). Also describes intent_params with from/to. However, parameters like confirm, mode, operation are not explained, leaving some gaps.

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's purpose: goal-driven healing where the user declares an intent (make-it-work, make-standalone, migrate) and the tool plans and applies operations. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like xlsx_healer_cure by emphasizing the goal-driven approach.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (user describes goal in plain English, multiple operations needed) and when not to use (specific cure operation chosen, no diagnostic run). Provides clear alternatives, making it easy for the agent to decide.

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