Manage rows and columns

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: delete is described as irreversible with cell-reference shifts, hide/show explicitly does not touch data, insert explains formatting inheritance direction, and group/ungroup explains nesting behavior. This goes well beyond the destructiveHint and readOnly annotations.

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 description is dense and front-loaded with the core concept, followed by actions separated by semicolons. Every piece of information earns its place, though the long single-sentence structure could be more scannable with bullet points.

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 having no output schema, the description fully covers all eight actions, parameter roles, index math, and edge-case behaviors such as irreversibility and formatting inheritance. An agent has all necessary context to invoke the tool correctly on any of the supported operations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description enriches this with concrete examples like 'columns A-C = start 0, end 3', explains the inclusive/exclusive index boundary, and clarifies how action-specific parameters (pixel_size, inherit_from_before) affect behavior.

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 names the exact resource ('rows/columns') and the verb ('operations'), then enumerates each action. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like manage_sheets and set_frozen by specifying row/column run semantics rather than sheet-level or formatting operations.

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?

The scope is clearly stated: this handles row/column operations on a run, with explicit indexing and action semantics. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select this tool for row/column operations.

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