Append rows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the most important behavioral trait for an append tool: rows land after the last occupied row and existing data is preserved. However, it says nothing about permissions/auth, return payload, partial-append failure behavior, or how trailing blank rows are treated.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the differentiator. Nothing redundant and no wasted framing.

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 4-parameter, 100%-documented schema with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core append semantics adequately. Minor gaps remain around return value expectations and failure/partial-write behavior, but nothing critical to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the schema already documents range, values, spreadsheetId, and the RAW/USER_ENTERED enum. The description's only nod to parameters is the loose phrase 'the given table', adding no format or encoding detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Adds rows') with a precise placement rule ('after the last occupied row of the given table'). It implicitly separates itself from overwriting siblings like write_range or update_row via 'without touching what is already there', but never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'This is the safe way to insert new data without touching what is already there' gives a clear selection criterion: use it when you want additive inserts rather than replacement. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. write_range) or stating when-not to use it, so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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