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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful partial-update semantics, but it never explains what the destructive aspect means in practice (e.g., replacing viewOrder, toggling subItems) despite the destructive hint.

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, the mutable field list front-loaded, and no filler. The second sentence carries two distinct, high-value facts without restating the first.

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 10-parameter destructive mutation with an output schema, the description covers scope, partial-update behavior, and ID sourcing adequately. The remaining gap is the absence of any warning about the destructive effects implied by the annotations.

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 coverage is only 60%, and the description compensates by mapping opaque parameter names to plain-language concepts: 'row prefix' for prefix, 'item noun' for itemNoun, 'the form rows open in' for defaultFormId, and 'the order of its views' for viewOrder. It still omits constraints such as viewOrder needing every view id, which only the schema states.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Change a sheet's settings') and enumerates the mutable fields, so an agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like sheet.rename or sheet.update_attribute, which overlap on the 'name' field.

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?

'Only the settings you name change' communicates the partial-update contract, and 'Ids come from `sheet.schema`' gives a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit routing guidance versus sheet.rename (which also changes the name) or sheet.update_attribute, leaving the agent to infer which sibling to pick.

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