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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write scoped to the workspace (openWorldHint=false). The description adds the workspace scope and return content, but nothing beyond structured data about permissions, duplicate creation on repeat calls, or limits. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary trigger and closed with the sibling redirect. Every sentence carries a distinct piece of information with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the trigger, scope, and the key routing decision, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented by the schema. The description hints at content type via its examples and mentions 'formulas where useful', but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (create) and resource (spreadsheet / data table) with concrete examples (budget, tracker, schedule, list). It also names the sibling it is not, add_rows, so an agent can distinguish it without opening another 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user wants a new spreadsheet or data table') and an explicit alternative plus condition ('To add rows to an existing sheet, use add_rows'). Both the when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else cases are covered.

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