Write to a range

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the critical destructive trait: existing data in the range is lost. It does not cover permission/auth requirements or the response shape, so it falls short of a full 5, but the most important risk is stated prominently.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: behavior, warning, and alternatives. The destructive warning is front-loaded after the action, and every clause earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the destructive overwrite semantics and sibling routing that an agent needs. It could optionally note return behavior or scope-limiting, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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%, so range, values, spreadsheetId, and the valueInputOption enum are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Overwrites the cells of a range') and immediately distinguishes itself from the two nearest siblings by naming them (append_rows for adding rows, update_row for editing a field). An agent can route correctly without opening any sibling schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use append_rows to add rows at the end, update_row to change an existing field. This is the exact routing information needed among list_tabs/read_range/append_rows/update_row/clear_range siblings.

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