Apply Table Style

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

Annotations provide no readOnly or destructive hints, so the description carries the burden. 'Apply' makes the mutating nature clear, and 'Returns: JSON confirmation' gives a basic output expectation. However, it does not disclose whether an existing style is overwritten or whether the table must already exist.

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 compact and well-organized with Args and Returns sections. Every line adds useful information, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 all parameters and the return type, but it omits usage context such as prerequisites, behavior when style_name is invalid, and how this relates to sibling styling tools. For a simple mutation tool it is adequate, but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: every parameter is explained, including the active-workbook/active-sheet fallbacks and concrete style name examples. It also marks table_name as required, which is important context not visible in the schema.

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: 'Apply a built-in table style.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the parameter list makes it evident this targets an existing table, distinguishing it from table creation, table listing, and other siblings.

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 the tool is used when a table already exists and needs a built-in style, but it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over alternatives like format_range or create_table. There is no exclusion guidance or sibling differentiation.

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