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

Annotations declare a non-destructive mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: views are shared ('everyone sees') and a form's share link is derived from the sheet's form view. Auth/approval mechanics are left to the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the core action and visibility scope, then branches into the three kinds. Dense but essentially waste-free; only mildly long for the information carried.

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 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the three view kinds and their key fields well. It omits the workspace/approval requirements, but those are already documented in the schema, so the description is nearly complete.

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 only 42%, so the description must compensate. It helpfully maps parameters to view kinds (where/sort for grid, groupBy for board, formFields/formTitle/formIntro for form), but gives no format or syntax detail and leaves several parameters unexplained.

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 (Adds) and resource (a saved view) scoped to a sheet table, then enumerates the three view kinds (grid, board, form) with their distinguishing mechanics. An agent can immediately tell what it creates without opening the schema.

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 is implied through the kind options and their descriptions (grid for where/sort, board for lanes, form for data entry), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance or named alternative among siblings like napkin_tables_create or napkin_boards_create.

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