add_sheet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and does not mention side effects such as writing to disk, failure behavior when the sheet already exists, or requirements on the target file. For a mutating tool this is a notable gap.

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 a single concise sentence with no waste, and the core action is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has only two simple parameters and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required from the description. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description omits important context such as error conditions and whether the file must already exist, leaving the definition merely adequate.

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%, and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names. The names file_path and sheet_name are self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation, nor does it clarify any 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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Add a new sheet to the Excel file.' It is distinguishable enough from siblings like add_data_to_sheet and add_table_to_sheet because it specifically mentions a new sheet, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling, so it lacks that extra differentiation.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated. An agent can infer from the name and description that this tool is for creating a new sheet, but there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or whether create_blank_file or add_data_to_sheet might be more appropriate.

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