write_formulas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose two important traits: a backup is created before change and the operation is mutating. It does not, however, describe overwrite behavior, backup location/recovery, or what happens to existing formulas in targeted cells.

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 very concise: two sentences plus a short mutation tag. The primary action is front-loaded, the backup behavior is included, and there is no redundant fluff.

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 mutating tool with a nested parameter object, no annotations, and 0% schema descriptions, the description is incompleted. It omits how updates maps to cells and formulas, whether existing content is overwritten, backup details, and prerequisite conditions despite an output schema being present.

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 adds no parameter-level meaning. 'Updatates' is left ambiguous; the description does not clarify that keys likely represent cell references and values formula strings, nor does it explain file_path and sheet_name beyond their names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('Excel formulas into a workbook sheet'), making the tool's core action immediately clear. This also distinguishes it from sibling read-analysis tools like read_excel_metadata and from write_output, which is not specifically about formulas in a sheet.

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 writing formulas into a workbook sheet and marks the operation as mutating, which clues the agent to avoid it for read-only needs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as write_output or the analysis siblings, nor does it list exclusions.

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