Rename Worksheet

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

Annotations are minimal (only title), so the description carries full burden. It discloses that renaming is a mutation and describes the return format, but it does not mention potential errors (e.g., duplicate names, missing sheets) or side effects. This is adequate but not rich.

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 structured with a clear main sentence, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core action.

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 rename tool without an output schema, the description covers the essentials: action, parameters, defaults, and return format. It does not describe failure cases, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity and the explicit open-workbook context.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is essential. It clearly explains each parameter (workbook, name, new_name), including defaults (None = active) and marks new_name as required, fully compensating for the schema's lack of detail.

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 'Rename a worksheet in an open workbook,' a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_worksheet, delete_worksheet, and activate_worksheet. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives the prerequisite that the workbook must be open and provides default behavior for active elements, but it does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The use case is implied by the purpose, but explicit guidance is absent.

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