Rename a tab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses one non-obvious side effect — that formulas referencing the tab are updated automatically — but omits permission requirements, what happens if newTitle collides with an existing tab name, and whether the rename is reversible.

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 filler, with the action stated first and the side-effect note following. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple three-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action and one important side effect. The main remaining gap is conflict/error behavior when the target name already exists, which an agent would need to handle.

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 each parameter (spreadsheetId, currentTitle, newTitle) is already documented in the schema, including the URL-parsing detail for spreadsheetId. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Renames an existing tab'), which clearly separates it from siblings like add_tab, delete_tab, and list_tabs even without naming them. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the phrase 'an existing tab' signals the precondition that the tab must already exist. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no naming of alternatives (e.g., when to rename vs. delete and re-create), and no stated failure conditions.

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