write_output

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the mutating nature ('Mutating operation') and backup creation before overwrite, which is valuable. However, it omits details like error handling, whether the workbook must already exist, or what happens to existing sheets. It covers the core mutation safety but not full behavioral transparency.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the backup behavior is stated second, and the mutating nature is called out. Every sentence adds value, making it highly 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 mutating operation with no annotations and a 0% schema coverage, the description is under-specified. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file existence, sheet creation), error scenarios, or the structure of the output. While an output schema exists, its content isn't visible, so the description should cover more. The short text leaves an agent guessing about expected inputs and edge cases.

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% – the schema provides no descriptions for the three parameters. The description adds minimal meaning: 'output directory' hints at file_path, but rows and sheet_name are left unexplained. It doesn't compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, making it hard for an agent to know the expected format or constraints.

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 action ('Write computed output rows into a workbook') and the resource (workbook in output directory). It distinguishes from siblings like write_formulas by specifying 'computed output rows', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 (writing output rows) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention alternatives or conditions like 'use write_formulas for formulas instead'. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or routing.

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