Manage sheets

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

Annotations already flag mutating/destructive behavior, and the description adds significant specifics: delete is irreversible through the API, deleting the last sheet fails, copies arrive named 'Copy of ...', and the default grid is 1000×26. It also states the output shape (batchUpdate replies with affected sheet properties), which is especially valuable with no output schema.

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 longer than average but every sentence conveys a distinct operational constraint or behavior. The action-by-action structure makes it scannable, and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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?

This is a polymorphic tool with five actions, one enum, and eight parameters, and the description covers action-specific semantics, parameter requirements, edge cases, and output shape. An agent has enough information to invoke every action correctly even with no output 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 coverage is 100% and property descriptions already encode action-conditional meanings, so the bar for extra value is high. The description still adds useful cross-action guidance, the default grid size, the copy-to naming convention, and the pointer to get_spreadsheet for resolving sheet_id.

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 leads with a specific resource ('sheets (tabs) of a spreadsheet') and then enumerates five distinct verbs (add, duplicate, rename, delete, copy_to), making the tool's scope unmistakable. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like manage_dimensions or manage_charts.

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 description gives actionable cross-tool guidance, notably telling the agent to get sheet_id values from get_spreadsheet and noting that a renamed tab keeps its numeric sheetId so other tools keep working. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus each sibling, but the action list makes the targeted sheet/tab use case obvious.

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