rename_sheet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the cascade scope, the string-literal exclusion (a real correctness trap), the dry-run default, and that overwrite/allow_loss can cause loss. Gaps remain on reversibility, whether the input file is modified in place vs written to 'output', and behavior for references in other workbooks.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its cascade scope, then the critical dry-run default, then parameter pointers. Every clause carries information; nothing is 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?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description conveys scope, defaults, and risk-relevant flags, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The main shortfall is relying on cross-references to sibling tools for three parameters instead of spelling out their effect in this context.

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 must compensate. It adds meaning for dry_run, new_name (validated like add_sheet), and bundles output/overwrite/allow_loss via reference to set_cells, but leaves 'path' and 'sheet' entirely unexplained and defers three parameters to another tool's documentation rather than describing them here.

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 and resource ('Rename a sheet') plus the non-obvious scope of the operation: cascading updates to formulas, defined names, validation/conditional-format formulas, and internal hyperlinks. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_sheet or set_cells, which do not touch sheet names.

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?

Explicitly states the default workflow ('DRY RUN BY DEFAULT: lists each formula that would change'), which tells the agent to preview before committing. It also routes the agent to sibling semantics ('validated like add_sheet', 'work as in set_cells'). It stops short of naming when to prefer this over manual edit-then-rename approaches, but the operation is largely unique in the toolset.

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