xlsx_redact

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

The description discloses default behavior (preservation of formulas, comments, etc.), optional stripping parameters, and output handling (out_path vs. base64 return). This adds significant detail beyond annotations, which only indicate idempotent and open-world hints.

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 with a purpose line, default behavior, output instructions, and usage conditions. It is slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value; minor redundancy in the 'USE WHEN' block.

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 input requirements, default behavior, and output format, but the absence of explanation for 'file_b64' and the erroneous mention of 'out_path' reduce completeness. Without output schema, the description provides adequate but imperfect guidance.

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 coverage is 0%, so description is crucial. It explains options (strip_formulas, strip_comments, mode) and output behavior, but it references 'out_path' as a parameter not in the schema, causing confusion. It also fails to describe the required 'file_b64' parameter, leaving a gap.

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 redacts PII and sensitive values from LOCAL .xlsx files. The verb 'redact' and resource 'LOCAL .xlsx file' are specific, and it distinguishes from many sibling xlsx tools that perform other operations.

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 explicitly provides USE WHEN and DO NOT USE WHEN conditions, including file source and sandbox context. However, it does not name an alternative sibling tool for other redaction scenarios, leaving room for improvement.

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