clear_rangeClears values in a specified Google Sheets range while preserving existing cell formatting.
Clears the values of a range while leaving formatting intact. Destructive operation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range | Yes | A1 range to clear. | |
| spreadsheetId | Yes | Spreadsheet ID, or its full URL. The ID is the segment between /d/ and /edit in the URL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait — this is a destructive mutation that preserves formatting — which is genuinely useful beyond structured fields. However it omits permission requirements, reversibility/undo behavior, and what happens to formulas, so it only partially covers the mutation's behavior.
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 short sentences, zero waste, and the preservation constraint ('formatting intact') is packed into the first sentence before the destructive warning. Nothing to trim.
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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential 'what is destroyed / what is preserved' but leaves out permissions, undo behavior, and edge cases like formulas or empty cells. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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%, so both parameters (spreadsheetId, range) are fully documented in the schema, setting the baseline at 3. The description adds no additional detail about range syntax or ID handling, so it neither helps nor hurts.
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 ('clears the values of a range') plus a scope constraint ('leaving formatting intact') that meaningfully distinguishes it from write_range and update_cell. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.
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?
No when-to-use guidance at all. It never says when to prefer clearing over write_range with empty values, nor any prerequisites. The agent gets the what but not the when.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.