Activate Worksheet

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

Annotations provide no read-only or destructive hints, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the state-changing effect ('make active'), the workbook default behavior, and the JSON confirmation return value. It does not mention what happens if the named worksheet does not exist or whether any data is affected.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear one-line purpose followed by compact parameter documentation and a return note. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple activation tool, the description covers the key facts: what it does, both parameters, the default for workbook, and the return value. The main missing context is error behavior when the worksheet name is invalid, but the low complexity of the operation makes this a minor gap.

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 the description must compensate. It does: it explains that workbook is a name or path with None meaning active workbook, and that name is the sheet to activate and is required. This is valuable because the schema lists no required parameters and provides no descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Make a worksheet the active tab in an open workbook.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling worksheet tools like add_worksheet, delete_worksheet, rename_worksheet, and list_worksheets.

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: it is used to select a worksheet as the active tab, likely before other operations such as reading or writing cell values. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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