excel_create_workbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the mutating effect (creates a new file at file_path) and the default sheet initialization behavior. It does not say what happens if file_path already exists, whether overwriting occurs, or whether parent directories are created, which is a meaningful gap for a write tool.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with a compact args list. The core action is front-loaded, parameter explanations are one line each, and there is no irrelevant prose or repetition of schema types.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential decision points: where the file is created and what sheets are initialized. It is slightly incomplete because it omits overwrite/existing-file behavior, which an agent may need to know before invoking, but the low complexity means no further detail is required.

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: file_path gets a concrete meaning ('Path where the new Excel file will be created') and sheet_names gets usage semantics plus a default behavior ('Defaults to ['Sheet']'). This adds value the bare schema (with null default) does not provide.

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 first sentence names a specific verb, resource, and state: 'Create a new empty Excel workbook (.xlsx).' This clearly distinguishes the tool from all Excel siblings (read, write, search, manage sheets) and even from the create tools for Word/PPT by naming the .xlsx format.

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 tool's purpose makes its usage context clear: it is the Excel workbook creation entry point, and no sibling tool fills that role. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives such as excel_manage_sheets for post-creation sheet changes, so it falls just short of explicit routing.

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