Format Range

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond the sparse annotations: only explicitly set arguments are changed, everything else is preserved, and a JSON confirmation is returned. It also documents how 'None' resolves to the active workbook/sheet and gives formatting syntax examples. It falls short of covering error behavior or side effects, but it carries the transparency burden well.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior, then terse Args entries, each contributing concrete value. The return line is minimal and useful. Despite covering 13 parameters, it remains readable and free of filler.

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 13-parameter tool with no output schema and no meaningful annotations, the description covers all inputs, the selective-application behavior, the address format, and the return type. This is enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without further inference.

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 carry the full parameter documentation burden. It does so comprehensively: every parameter is listed with its meaning, expected value type, and relevant examples such as 'FF0000', '$#,##0.00', and horizontal alignment options. This exceeds what the raw schema provides.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pair: 'Apply font, fill, number-format, and alignment to a cell or range.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like set_range_values, clear_range, and sort_range, which serve different purposes.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is for formatting a range, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is implied by the formatting-specific language, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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