add_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two critical traits: the tool is DRY RUN BY DEFAULT, and name is validated for length, forbidden characters, and case-insensitive uniqueness. However, it punts on the semantics of output, overwrite, and allow_loss by deferring to set_cells, so the agent cannot tell from this definition what gets overwritten or lost.

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 definition is dense and front-loaded, leading with the action before constraints, with no filler sentences. The terse 'work as in set_cells' clause trades clarity for brevity, which is the one place where compression costs the reader.

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 return values need no explanation, and the description covers validation and the dry-run default well. For a 7-parameter, zero-annotation tool it is still incomplete: the overwrite/allow_loss behavior determines whether data can be destroyed, and that is left entirely to another tool's documentation.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description has to compensate, and it partially does: name validation rules and position's 1-based indexing plus default are genuine additions beyond the schema. But three of the seven parameters are explained only by cross-reference to another tool, which is a real gap for a mutation-adjacent operation.

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: 'Add an empty sheet.' This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like rename_sheet or set_cells, though it never explicitly names those alternatives to reinforce the distinction.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative for cases where the agent should modify an existing sheet instead. The only implicit routing signal is the dry-run default, which tells the agent the call is a no-op unless dry_run is disabled.

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