sheets_write

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

No annotations are provided, so the description takes on the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that values beginning with '=' are stored as literal text, never evaluated as formulas, and that USER_ENTERED is intentionally unavailable to prevent formula injection. This is valuable behavioral context, though it does not cover overwrite behavior or authentication.

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 short, front-loaded, and every sentence contributes either purpose or a critical behavioral constraint. The reference to 'value_input_option.py' is slightly opaque, but it does not undermine conciseness or clarity.

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 3-parameter write tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, the key input caveat, and the security reasoning. It does not discuss overwriting semantics or explicitly compare with siblings, but the low complexity and available schema/output schema keep the description reasonably complete.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning to 'range' by specifying A1 notation and to 'values' by explaining the literal-text rule for leading '='. However, 'spreadsheet_id' is left entirely implicit, and the 2D array shape of 'values' is only inferable from the schema, making the compensation partial.

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: 'Write values to a Google Sheet range (A1 notation).' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools sheets_read and sheets_list_tabs, which are read/list 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 description clearly positions the tool as a write operation and emphasizes a deliberate constraint: there is 'deliberately no way to request USER_ENTERED.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer this over sheets_read or sheets_list_tabs, though the distinction is strongly implied.

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