Add a new tab to a spreadsheet (sheet, excel, workbook).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Tab name | |
| rows | No | Number of rows | |
| cells | No | Initial cells in A1 notation. Each cell: { value, format?: { bold, italic, underline, color (text hex), bgColor (background hex), fontSize, fontFamily, align, numberFormat, decimals, currencySymbol } } | |
| columns | No | Number of columns | |
| sheet_id | Yes | Sheet (workbook) ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Add a new tab' and does not disclose whether this modifies an existing spreadsheet, requires existing sheet_id, what happens on duplicate tab names, or what the response is. The mutation side effects are not explained.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, no filler words. It is concise and readable while still conveying the core purpose.
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?
Despite full schema coverage, the tool involves a nested cells object and five parameters, and the description is only one sentence. It lacks context about how rows/columns/cells interact, optionality, constraints, or any behavioral guarantees for a mutation with no annotations or output schema. The agent would need to rely entirely on the schema.
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 the schema already explains each parameter (e.g., 'name' as 'Tab name', 'rows' as 'Number of rows'). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the nested 'cells' object is only introduced by the schema, not by the description.
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 action ('Add a new tab') and the resource ('to a spreadsheet'), with a helpful parenthetical clarifying terminology (sheet, excel, workbook). It distinguishes from 'create_sheet' by focusing on 'tab' rather than the workbook itself, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_sheet or update_sheet_tab. The description only states what the tool does; it does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action: document, sheet, tab, or presentation. Even similar operations like append_rows, append_slides, and append_to_document are clearly differentiated by their intended target.
The naming follows a predictable verb_noun pattern with create_, get_, list_, update_, delete_, and append_. Minor deviations like append_to_document (uses 'to') and the use of 'slide_presentation' vs 'slides' keep it from being perfectly uniform.
At 23 tools, the count is slightly above the ideal range, but each tool serves a clear purpose across three resource types (documents, sheets, slides). The volume is justified by supporting tab-level operations and append functionality.
The server provides full CRUD plus listing for each resource type, along with tab management and append operations. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of a direct 'set cell value' operation and no slide reorder or delete individual slide, but core workflows are well covered.