update_excel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'update' implies a mutation, it doesn't specify whether this overwrites existing data, appends to it, or modifies in place. It also lacks details on permissions, error handling, or what 'Confirmation message' entails, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter details. It uses bullet points for clarity and avoids unnecessary fluff. However, the 'Returns' section is vague ('Confirmation message'), which slightly reduces efficiency, but overall it's concise and organized.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the update behavior (e.g., overwrite vs. append), error conditions, or what the return value contains. For a tool with no structured support, this leaves too many unknowns for effective use.

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 description lists all four parameters with brief explanations, but the input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds basic semantics (e.g., 'Path to the Excel file to update'), but it doesn't fully compensate for the schema gap—details like data format specifics or sheet name constraints are missing, keeping it at a baseline level.

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's purpose: 'Update an existing Excel file with new data.' It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('Excel file'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'write_excel' or 'filter_excel', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'write_excel' and 'filter_excel' available, there's no indication of whether this tool is for appending data, overwriting, or modifying specific cells, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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