origin_melt_worksheet

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions that by default the worksheet is modified in place, but provides option for new sheet. It does not explicitly warn about destructive nature (overwriting original data) or other side effects like ignoring unsupported data types.

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 five sentences and efficiently conveys the main purpose and key parameters. It could be more structured (e.g., separate sections for parameters and behavior) but is not verbose.

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?

Given no schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers the essential transformation and output options but lacks details like default behavior when value_vars is null, handling of non-numeric columns, and the exact role of book_name/sheet_name as input identifiers.

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 add meaning. It explains id_vars and value_vars roles, and the output parameters, but does not clarify the default values for var_name and value_name, nor the difference between book_name/sheet_name vs output_book/output_sheet.

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 reshapes wide data into long format (unpivot), and explains the roles of id_vars and value_vars. This is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling 'origin_pivot_worksheet' which does the opposite.

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 explains the core transformation and the optional output parameters for writing to a new sheet, implying when to use vs. in-place modification. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like pivot_worksheet or other transformation tools.

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