make_xlsx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful generated behavior (real .xlsx format, SUM formulas in a total row, column typing), which is genuinely useful context. However it says nothing about overwrite behavior at 'path', permissions, error cases, or return value, leaving notable gaps for a file-writing 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 sentences, zero waste: capability first, routing condition second. Well front-loaded and appropriately sized. Not quite perfect in that the feature enumeration is a dense comma list, but it is efficient.

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 3-parameter, single-output file generator with no output schema, the description covers what is produced, what the file format is, and when to invoke it. Missing only edge-case behavior (path overwrite, failures), which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 67%, so the schema documents part of the surface (path, title, totals). The description reinforces this by naming type values (text/number/money/percent/float), column width, rows, and the 'Итого' SUM row, adding modest value. It does not explain the row-array shape or resolution of undocumented fields, so it stays at baseline.

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?

States a specific verb ('Создаёт') and concrete resource ('настоящий Excel-файл (.xlsx)'), and enumerates the produced artifacts (sheets, columns, rows, total row). It implicitly distinguishes itself from make_csv/make_docx by naming the .xlsx output, but never explicitly references the siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger list: 'Используй, когда пользователь просит таблицу, отчёт, смету или выгрузку в Excel.' That is clear positive guidance for when to pick this tool. It offers no exclusions or named alternatives (make_csv/make_docx), so it is not a 5.

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